With the government
incapable of sufficiently funding the basics such as education and health, there
has been a major decrease in public, as well as private, funding for the arts. While
those in the art industry have been expressing their grief in many extreme
ways, the general opinion is that the government does not have a responsibility
over funding of the arts. Most simply assume that it would be better to use tax
on street lights and hospitals rather than art shows and galleries. However,
Alan Davey, who is the current chief executive of the Arts Council in Britain,
takes on the opinion of its founder, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes’ belief that
public funding in arts would bring economic and cultural benefits is what
brought the council about. Such movements to bring about public spending are
what enabled Britain to be a hub of top quality museums and theatres with affordable
prices. Public support also brought about more private funding as well. In the
end, it all boils down to increase in cultural export, quality of
neighborhoods, number of jobs and tourists, and an abstract sense of pride in
each citizen. However, Peter Spence of the Adam Smith Institute argues that
government interference in arts rather does more harm than good. With the
government involved, the censorship brought along would put a limit to the
creativity of artists. It gives the government the power to choose which type
of artists to root for, leading to a situation where artists are merely trying
to satisfy government donors and their political beliefs. There is much debate
about this topic and the question still remains, could we leave the future of
arts up to the market during a time of economic difficulty?
0 개의 댓글:
댓글 쓰기