This has been a fascinating thread, although it sometimes veers a bit close to subjects that might better be left unargued in this particular forum.
HOWEVER! There is no such entity as "The Arts." Therefore any dogmatic statements on either side of the government support question are essentially meaningless unless you carefully define which of many arts at an infinite variety of levels of seriousness you are actually talking about. I'll briefly refer to music. The arts of music are indeed supported in our culture, and supported most generously. I'm not sure how many billions of dollars are spent on the arts of music every year, but the amount is substantial. Who decides what gets supported? We do, as individuals, one decision at a time. It is the aggregate support of millions of individuals making free choices in the free market that determines where songs are on the charts and who gets the industry awards. Yes, agressive marketing takes place. So what? Decisions are still made one person at a time. This support is directed almost exclusively, of course, to the popular end of the musical arts spectrum. You may like that or you may not, for perfectly good or for indefensible reasons, but it's the reality of our time. So, what about the government? What governments need to furnish is support for their inherited culture, not just music and not just "the arts." Classical music is part of our cultural heritage, and as such needs government support just as much as graphic and plastic arts need museums and cultural milestones need monuments. Does that mean that symphony orchestras, ballet companies, and opera companies are fulfilling a museum function? Of course! And they are fulfilling it very well, in many cases, but could not do so without governmental support IN SOME FORM, as is recongnized in the charitable gift deductions in the Internal Revenue Code. Can those "arts" organizations also contribute to our current and future culture? Yes, of course. But not by competing directly with the overwhelming and very healthy market forces that govern popular "arts." These "serious" arts are aspects of our past culture which existed, grew and flourished as entertainment for the upper classes, whether nobility or merely wealthy. They still are. They are deliberately not "popular." They aspire to, and occasionally actually reach, a higher level of artistic accomplishment and communication. But there is great danger in leaving the definition of what is great "art" to the artists, roughly the same danger faced when the inmates are allowed to run the assylum! Any artist's work is properly judged by "the market," but in the case of "fine arts" that market is not everyone, but those to whom that work should be intended to be appealing. This is argued continually on the OrchestraList, where a great many excellent conductors and composers struggle to find a 21st century relevance in what they do. Is the answer to "go pop"? Probably not, because that niche is already filled by those more qualified to have success in it. The answer, as always, is to appeal to those capable of supporting your particular slice of "the arts." Should governments actively support the museum function of the musical "arts"? I think so, because that is part of governments' mandate. Should they actively support current "artists" in what they claim is current "art"? I don't think so. Or at least not until an "artist" has demonstrated success and acceptance in the niche market s/he aspires to. Until, in other words, that "artist" has BECOME part of our cultural heritage. But I've been wrong before. John John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
