You thought I was done after yesterdays issue didn't you? Well, I am not. There is more savings to be had in government. This time I wish to be rid of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Again, I have my reasons which I will explain right here and now.
We don't need it: The NEA's mission is mainly to support art projects whether that is in the form of a painting, music or even literature. Grants are given to various groups in support of these projects that are considered by government to be worthy of our tax dollars. Problem, art is in the eye of the beholder, and why are we subsidizing art in the first place. I can understand the cultural aspect, but one person’s art may not necessarily be what another considers art. Also, who decides what art is worth helping out and whose art is not. Overall, art is art, but some of the artists who get this money have no other job. They are full time artists who use our tax dollars for their own purposes. Art does not need government aid to be created, let alone to decide what constitutes art.
If we want a statue we'll commission one: One of the NEA's responsibilities is national initiatives. This may range from inspiring young artists, to helping in the transformation of a park. But we are forgetting something very important; the local municipalities can pay for an art project themselves. There is no need for the NEA's support or interference in such matters. Not to mention, charities and other organizations can fund the projects and works of the artists themselves. Promoting the growth of art, or an artist in general is not something that is needed as all we have to do is let people engage in their own pursuits. If that is done, the artists and their art will begin to permeate society naturally.
Crowd Funded art: Yes, crowd funding can support art too. It helped get the "Veronica Mars" movie that fans wanted. So if it can get a movie funded, then it can get all sorts of art funded too. What need is there for a national foundation when we can just ask the people to donate towards the art they want to see.
A risk in keeping this agency: Back in 2009, the NEA was under fire because one of its members wanted artists to make art that promoted President Obama's agenda. This may have actually happened if it was not made public. As such, it is important to remember that many of these artists rely on their art for income, and that includes money from the NEA. As such, they may be easily manipulated into making propaganda simply by putting them under threat of loosing their funding. It does not matter the administration, or what political party is involved, but it is a risk.
Conclusion: The NEA supports artists of all kinds. However, it is not worth the cost with respect to deciding whose art is acceptable or funding people to do art work that may in the end hold no value. As a amateur photographer myself, I know it can be fairly difficult to get any money from your hard work, but that does not mean tax payer dollars should be used to fund it either. It is another additional cost that is unneeded in today's government.
No comments:
Post a Comment