Should taxes be used to fund theaters or museums? (1 Viewer)

[BackCountrySnow]

Should taxpayers be expected to prop up any theaters or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis?

Discuss.

 

[withoutaface]

Politiclol compass

 

[Trefoil]

Should taxpayers be expected to prop up any theaters or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis?

Discuss.

Well done quoting a political quiz.

And my answer is: yes, within reason. No blank checks, but there should be a certain amount set aside for theatres and museums; preservation and encouragement of culture and history.

Much as I fucking loathe the dumb fucks who through cow shit at a wall and call it art.

 

[Kwayera]

Hmm.


That's my answer: hmm.

 

[BackCountrySnow]

Well done quoting a political quiz.

thanks

And my answer is: yes, within reason. No blank checks, but there should be a certain amount set aside for theatres and museums; preservation and encouragement of culture and history.

I think the question is more:
Who should decide what part of our history and culture is preserved. Is it the government, using tax payers money. Or the people, when they choose to visit the museum/theatre.

But also, people may want a section of our history or culture to be preserved, but they wouldn't visit the museum/theatre often enough to let it survive. In an event like this, perhaps it is the role of the government to
intervene.

Much as I fucking loathe the dumb fucks who through cow shit at a wall and call it art.

Artists proposing complex concepts =/= dumb fucks


EDIT: My answer is now YES.

 

[scaredytiger]

Yes.

Though the theatrical grants should not be used to censor. Under Howard, at least,(I am not sure if this has changed) the grants required that works could not comment on current political issues.

Cultural intelligence and the ability to express through artistic mediums is essential. One of the best mediums for social and political comment is theatre, as displayed by the trend of social realism in Australia - providing a voice through theatre for Aboriginal Australians.

An argument may be "But can't they use art, or literature, as a medium?"

There is nothing so immediate, so moving, so vunerable as theatre. It is more than just words, it is an energy. The possibly abstract ideas it deals with are given breath and form.




As for Museums, I believe that there should be an effort to preserve the past, and to understand the culture from which we came, so as to better understand how our ideology is influenced by previous generations.

I'm not a history nut, so someone else can argue museums better.

 

[scaredytiger]

can't survive on commercial basis ---> lack of demand ---> soceity can't grow cultural intelligence (unless you force people to watch theatre)

Except for the fact that given it is quality theatre, it will generally cover the cost of production by the end.

It is only the fact that the people who need it as a voice most are generally unable to invest that amount of money to begin with.

 

[9deuce]

Theaters? No
Museums? Yes

 

[Trefoil]

Well, you don't need theatres to foster culture, but I personally nonetheless would like to see them preserved.

I think that's moot, though. Most theatres operate fine on a commercial basis.

What SHOULD perhaps be subsidised is certain indie film-makers who otherwise can't find funding. But the danger of that is people like Uwe Boll.

 

[chelsea girl]

Yes to both.

Museums for the obvious reasons: preserving the past and educating oneself about it is important for the culture of any society.
Also, it is one of my core beliefs in life that to know as much as we can about the future, and to avoid mistakes, we must thoroughly understand the past. Museums are probably the most universally accessible way for people to gain historical knowledge.

I am quite infuriated by the opinion that theatres provide little more than entertainment. Dramatic art has been used for centuries to express, share and explore human emotion, as well as making all manner of statements (political, cultural, racial). It is the most pure and honest form of art.
There is an enormous lack of funding for the arts in this country; the difficulty it takes to stage a large-ish scale production is monumental. The rate of unemployment amongst those trained in the field = sickening.
Without theatres, you'd have a cultural wasteland. They are the absolute epicentre of art: the heart of the artistic world.
I don't see why those who are artistically enlightened should suffer because not everyone wants to spend time and money going to the theatre. I hate sport, I wish it didn't exist, but a ridiculous amount of money is poured into that particular facet of our nation's lifestyle.

 

[chelsea girl]

Furthermore, theatre is one of the most accessible art forms (along with music), I'd say - so surely that is reason enough to ensure those involved receive adequate funding?
More so than literature or visual art, drama needs no background knowledge, or even any real intellect, to be enjoyed. See: Shakespearean audiences.

 

[scaredytiger]

zoe brought up some pretty important points.

to add to that, pretty much the only large scale productions you will see are spectacle - musicals and circus.

fewer and fewer people get written into scripts because theres just not enough money to pay more than 2-5 actors, a director, a production manager, etc.

 

[zstar]

Are you people insane?

There's barely enough money to fund the public schools, transport and power stations let alone Museums.

I hope none of you become PM.

 

[chelsea girl]

Are you people insane?

There's barely enough money to fund the public schools, transport and power stations let alone Museums.

I hope none of you become PM.

well i guess it comes down to whether you value a country being useful and mechanised, or rich in culture and individual expression.

edit: also, nobody is saying that we should cut all funding for education, transport, etc. simply that there should be more support for the arts and culture.

 

[PrettyOddProlix]

No to theatres.
Sort of for museums, if it sort of means preservation of something deserving.

 

[zstar]

well i guess it comes down to whether you value a country being useful and mechanised, or rich in culture and individual expression.

edit: also, nobody is saying that we should cut all funding for education, transport, etc. simply that there should be more support for the arts and culture.

In NSW there is no money, Everyone wants their welfare, medicare and other social entitlement programs.


They estimate that a fifth of all public schools have to resort to funding themselves because the government has lack of funds, The can't upgrade the power grid because there's no money, They had to cancel building extra rails for trains because they are short of funding, They can't fund the public hospitals because the demand for new ones means spending more money.


If you wanted tax payer funded Museums you would have to reduce spending by heaps and reduce the size of the government otherwise they would have to raise taxes.

 

[PrettyOddProlix]

Should taxpayers be expected to prop up any theaters or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis?

Discuss.

Oooh,... right... FUCK NO.

Or, keep one museum for everything and that is all.
If it can't survive on a commercial basis, screw it; it should.