I believe that the government does not need to fund pubic art. Once the government begins providing financial support, artists will inevitably feel pressure to create works that are favorable to the …Read MoreI believe that the government does not need to fund pubic art. Once the government begins providing financial support, artists will inevitably feel pressure to create works that are favorable to the government in order to secure funding. Public art requires protection more than direct financial assistance. Even if some form of support is considered, it can take various forms. For example, instead of giving direct subsidies to artists, the government could require that large-scale construction projects allocate space for artworks according to their size, thereby stimulating the art market indirectly. This kind of approach may be beneficial, but direct government funding carries the risk of undermining the value of artistic independence.
History shows that the risk is not new. In the 14th century, Florence, the Medici family sponsored many artists, which helped make the city a vibrant cultural hub. However, much of the art produced was designed to glorify the Medici family and secure their favor. In other words, the subject of economic patronage often determines the direction of artistic expression. If the patron becomes the government, then one of the arts’ most essential values-freedom from regulation and interference- may be compromised. Read Less
I voted maybe, but after reading your comment, I have to agree with no. I didn’t initially think of how art could be essentially censored if it is government-funded, but that makes total sense.
I answered maybe, because I don’t believe art needs to be publicly funded to thrive, but I do think that the government funding some art education or other such ventures for the general citizenry as a …Read MoreI answered maybe, because I don’t believe art needs to be publicly funded to thrive, but I do think that the government funding some art education or other such ventures for the general citizenry as a way to enrich people’s lives could do some good for the well being of the people. So while I don’t fully agree with it being directly funded, programs that encourage art and creative expression should be funded, especially due to the benefits it brings to mental health.Read Less
I believe that the government does not need to fund pubic art. Once the government begins providing financial support, artists will inevitably feel pressure to create works that are favorable to the …Read MoreI believe that the government does not need to fund pubic art. Once the government begins providing financial support, artists will inevitably feel pressure to create works that are favorable to the government in order to secure funding. Public art requires protection more than direct financial assistance. Even if some form of support is considered, it can take various forms. For example, instead of giving direct subsidies to artists, the government could require that large-scale construction projects allocate space for artworks according to their size, thereby stimulating the art market indirectly. This kind of approach may be beneficial, but direct government funding carries the risk of undermining the value of artistic independence.
History shows that the risk is not new. In the 14th century, Florence, the Medici family sponsored many artists, which helped make the city a vibrant cultural hub. However, much of the art produced was designed to glorify the Medici family and secure their favor. In other words, the subject of economic patronage often determines the direction of artistic expression. If the patron becomes the government, then one of the arts’ most essential values-freedom from regulation and interference- may be compromised. Read Less
I voted maybe, but after reading your comment, I have to agree with no. I didn’t initially think of how art could be essentially censored if it is government-funded, but that makes total sense.
I answered maybe, because I don’t believe art needs to be publicly funded to thrive, but I do think that the government funding some art education or other such ventures for the general citizenry as a …Read MoreI answered maybe, because I don’t believe art needs to be publicly funded to thrive, but I do think that the government funding some art education or other such ventures for the general citizenry as a way to enrich people’s lives could do some good for the well being of the people. So while I don’t fully agree with it being directly funded, programs that encourage art and creative expression should be funded, especially due to the benefits it brings to mental health. Read Less