Well, this is a hard topic. It's a fun topic because there's a lot of theorizing and since there's no real answer, anything could technically be correct. However, with the new president of the United States, this issue has become much more pressing than it already was.
The readings state that other countries give a lot more art funding than the United States does. This fact is depressing on so many levels. Art is one way to example a nation's creativity and creativity is what keeps the world spinning. Without funding for the arts, I fear that a dangerous cycle will begin; the only art to receive funding will be that art which is popular at the time. Therefore, the most creative artists and new works of art might become way more underappreciated than they already are. However, the United States underfunding art isn't anything new; the interesting fact that the readings talked about was that countries across the world are beginning to lesson their art funding, in some places completely. This depletion of art funding can lead to many bad happenings. One of which being de facto limitation of expression. If the government gains control of the money and has less of it to dish out, then less people will receive money. This becomes an issue because in order to get money from the government, the artist must first appeal to that government and gain their support. Therefore, to be an artist and maintain money, one would have to limit their own expression and adhere to the government's ideals. This would also decrease the ability of people who want to speak out AGAINST the government via art, because, well, yeah. Now that we've established that defunding arts is bad for many reason, not just the ones above, let's talk about the reasons why it happens. As mentioned in the articles, things are becoming more expensive. Countries are putting more money toward things like the military or infrastructure, and so when their budget falls short, there needs to be cuts from somewhere. While art is necessary in a country, when you look at many of the other things the government spends money on, art seems pretty insignificant in comparison, like medical insurance for example. One article made the connection between a family being able to have food or art I think. While this draws a good point, people are forgetting that there are other places in the budget that arguably receive way too much funding. One article also mentioned how one missile could pay for a lot of art funding, I don't remember the exact numbers but it was impressive. While I can understand that there needs to be budget cuts, I haven't been convinced yet that this is the best place to make those cuts. Another very interesting point I think, is that artists are not usually the same people that are in governmental positions. This leads me to wonder if maybe artists are losing their voice in the world and therefore getting the shorter end of the stick? Then there's the issue of trump trying to defund the NEA and whatever else he's doing that I'm trying to not think about. I think that this could and will be really detrimental. Maggie Walker is a school for extremely intelligent people, often students who have amazing art skills; I think of America the same way. Filled with innovative, hardworking, creative people. One there is no more art, I don't think there will be any more "America the Great."
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2017
Categories |