09 Jun 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy, then, should people who are opposed to the Iraq war be forced to contribute toward it? The fact is that you don't have a line item veto on how your taxes are used. My tax dollars are used for a great number of things that I am bitterly opposed to.
So the people who want the Philly Orchestra to continue should donate money to them, and perhaps they should charge more for their concerts or pay their musicians less. I don't see why someone who doesn't care about orchestral music should be forced to contribute towards it.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by rwingettYes, but why is that relevant here? I oppose the policy of going to war in Iraq and I oppose subsidizing art. That I oppose something doesn't imply that the electorate, through its representatives, has to agree with me.
Why, then, should people who are opposed to the Iraq war be forced to contribute toward it? The fact is that you don't have a line item veto on how your taxes are used. My tax dollars are used for a great number of things that I am bitterly opposed to.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI guess that's the end of this thread, then. It's your opinion that art should not be funded and, by golly, you're entitled to your opinion. Well that's just super.
Yes, but why is that relevant here? I oppose the policy of going to war in Iraq and I oppose subsidizing art. That I oppose something doesn't imply that the electorate, through its representatives, has to agree with me.
12 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseIt could be.
So would a painting that doesn't represent anything be totally black or totally white?
It could also be, as Seitse put it, IKEA decoration.
However, the main point is that representation leads you astray from the piece of art itself.
As so finely put in "Filthy, Rich & Catflap": "Poofarty? Someone called Poofarty is in my show?"
What they suggest though, and more to the point, is that only art which is fleeting can truly be art (like a burp). Obviously they jest...
12 Jun 11
Originally posted by shavixmirJest so you know, there is a Buddhist art form of sand painting that is very intricate, patterns representing the life force of the universe, well planned out and done in sand on a table and when it is done, they destroy it after viewing it for a few seconds. Beautiful stuff.
It could be.
It could also be, as Seitse put it, IKEA decoration.
However, the main point is that representation leads you astray from the piece of art itself.
As so finely put in "Filthy, Rich & Catflap": "Poofarty? Someone called Poofarty is in my show?"
What they suggest though, and more to the point, is that only art which is fleeting can truly be art (like a burp). Obviously they jest...
15 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouse|
Jest so you know, there is a Buddhist art form of sand painting that is very intricate, patterns representing the life force of the universe, well planned out and done in sand on a table and when it is done, they destroy it after viewing it for a few seconds. Beautiful stuff.
|
V
http://formyhour.com/the-art-of-tibetan-sand-painting
16 Jun 11
Originally posted by SeitseAll I can say is your wrong on all counts, but that is what makes the world go round.
... at least not with public money.
It is utter nonsense and those who say they like it
in reality are just striking a pose to appear cool.
Ergo, it is a waste of money and it serves no purpose
other than give something to do to some untalented
weed smokers.
Discuss.
20 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCharge more for their concerts -> no one will be able to afford to go
So the people who want the Philly Orchestra to continue should donate money to them, and perhaps they should charge more for their concerts or pay their musicians less. I don't see why someone who doesn't care about orchestral music should be forced to contribute towards it.
Pay their musicians less -> not possible (musicians are hardly seriously paid, compared to let's say a plumber or so, and compare the amount of study and hard work needed for those two)
Someone who doesn't necessarily care about orchestral music should be forced to contribute towards it, because that's how a society works. You pay taxes and some people in charge decide what's best for the country.
Having institutions like symphony orchestras (or schools, or hospitals, or music schools, etc. etc.) is almost always in a country's best interest.
Besides, research has shown (at least in The Netherlands, where they've very recently decided to cut major art (and mainly music) funding) that for each dollar/euro that goes to arts you get multiple dollars/euros back.
So a society actually only gets things back from 'being forced to contribute towards it'. Funding the arts (and music in particular since I know most about it) is, has always been or, if not, should be a major governmental issue.
Imagine having a talented child and not being able to show it Van Gogh, Monet, Rembrandt, Chagall, or let it listen to Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Mozart (to name 'just' a few). And I don't mean CD's (made by artists who were most of the time able to get where they are because at some point they were helped by governmental funding, aside from having worked their asses off for their entire lives) but the real thing.
Music is one of those things that evolved as mankind evolved.
Things like making money and other (extremely boring) stuff existed since man existed, in one way or another.
Focusing only on this while wiping out that which makes us the intelligent and evolved beings we are today will only put us back. It might sound dramatic and the results will not be immediate, but eventually it will be this way.
Maybe you care about special things that make us humans with emotions and feeling for things we can't quite understand (like really good beautiful music or beautiful paintings).
Maybe you don't. In that case, welcome back to the stone age.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by davanielI care about music and the arts. People will make music and pieces of art even without funding because that's what people do. I make music. I don't get paid and I don't want the money (don't need it anyhow). I'm not convinced that music or the arts become more enlightening when there is a government bureaucrat deciding which pieces of music or art are worthwhile and which aren't, and so far no one in this thread has even attempted to make that case.
Charge more for their concerts -> no one will be able to afford to go
Pay their musicians less -> not possible (musicians are hardly seriously paid, compared to let's say a plumber or so, and compare the amount of study and hard work needed for those two)
Someone who doesn't necessarily care about orchestral music should be forced to contribute toward ...[text shortened]... tiful paintings).
Maybe you don't. In that case, welcome back to the stone age.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhile you don't need the money, there are plenty of musicians for whom it's their job to make music, and it should be because it's the only way you can keep making music at a top level.
I care about music and the arts. People will make music and pieces of art even without funding because that's what people do. I make music. I don't get paid and I don't want the money (don't need it anyhow). I'm not convinced that music or the arts become more enlightening when there is a government bureaucrat deciding which pieces of music or art are w ...[text shortened]... e and which aren't, and so far no one in this thread has even attempted to make that case.
It's not about the government deciding which pieces of music or art are worthwhile, but about the government giving people the opportunity to decide which pieces of music or art are worthwhile.
Whether or not it's bureaucratic or not is hardly an issue in this discussion.
21 Jun 11
Originally posted by davanielMusic or art isn't going to die when the government stops funding it.
While you don't need the money, there are plenty of musicians for whom it's their job to make music, and it should be because it's the only way you can keep making music at a top level.
It's not about the government deciding which pieces of music or art are worthwhile, but about the government giving people the opportunity to decide which pieces of music ...[text shortened]... rthwhile.
Whether or not it's bureaucratic or not is hardly an issue in this discussion.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
22 Jun 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWho else is going to? In centuries gone by, it used to be the rich and powerful. They considered it their civic duty, and a good way to gain status to boot. Do you see that happening today?
Music or art isn't going to die when the government stops funding it.
Richard