Should the Government Fund the Arts in Tough Economic Times?
by Recently, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the stimulus package), $80 million of the stimulus money was given to the national Endowment for the Arts. The news has been met with a variety of responses. Some people who would normally support the measure may oppose it in tough economic times.
So given the fact that there were cuts in education and health care, would it be wise to spend money on such things as a production called Perverts Put Out? They used federal stimulus money to fund pornographic productions while making cuts in education.
In tough economic times, people are generally forced to prioritize in the area of their own personal spending. Shouldn’t the government do the same? I realize that the argument could be made that we are saving jobs by funding these productions but couldn’t we be saving jobs elsewhere, in places where a more meaningful contribution to society would be made? You know, like in education?
I think that most people would agree that our educational system could probably use some improvement, in order to remain competitive in the world; especially considering the fact that we currently rank somewhat poorly when compared to other major industrial nations. Now I’m sure that these productions are quite educational in their own right but I think the emphasis in education should be on math, science, social studies and vocational training. Not sexual deviancy.
I am a musician and some might wonder as to where a musician such as myself might stand on this particular issue. Some may think that my first inclination would be to support government funding of the Arts. They would be wrong in making that assumption, though. In good economic times, my mind might be open to such things but not in times similar to what we are facing now.
Yes the Arts do add to the quality of life but so does an adequate education. Education enables success. Education is a necessity. Also, what is often loosely referred to as “art” is of questionable quality and/or taste.
One project that has received past NEA funding and may get an additional boost from a $25,000 stimulus grant is “The Symmetry Project.” The show depicts “the sharing of a central axis, [as] spine, mouth, genitals, face, and anus reveal their interconnectedness and centrality in embodied experience,” according to a description offered on the choreographer Jess Curtis’ Web site.
I’ve already told you where I stand on this issue. So give the previous paragraph some thought and you decide where you stand on your tax dollars being used to fund this over education.
Liked it
-
-
Post CommentKathy Ostman-Magnusen
On August 11, 2009 at 10:37 am
Without the arts there is a piece of of all that dies. There will always be abuses to every single thing in life, so it is not surprising that it creeps into the National Endowment of the Arts as well. I don’t think the answer is to abandon it because of that. The arts bring us a sense of hope and peace, joy and sometimes the ability to question. Reading, writing and arithmetic do not equal a balanced human being.
Bob Craypoe
On August 11, 2009 at 6:15 pm
The Arts don’t cease to exist simply because the government stops funding it. Most people’s exposure to the Arts happens within their own homes. We now have satellite TV and Radio systems with hundreds of channels. You have all Classical stations as well as music stations that cover each decade.
People can even go online and learn how to play guitar from online chord charts and online instructional videos on youtube. If anything, it has created less of a need for the government to fund the Arts.