PM Series: Question 10

[Deus Naturae]

Disagree/Critical.

If there's one market where the government should absolutely not be determining or manipulating outcomes, it's this one.

[Deus Naturae]

Disagree/Critical.

If there's one market where the government should absolutely not be determining or manipulating outcomes, it's this one.

Really? I'd think it'd be the opposite - shouldn't the arts and culture be free from the Social Darwinist fangs of market capitalism?

What does social darwinism have to do with art? I'd prefer that culture and expression result from the organic development of society rather than the arbitrary dictates of government bureaucrats.

[Deus Naturae]

Agree, critical.  

Disagree/Critical.

If there's one market where the government should absolutely not be determining or manipulating outcomes, it's this one.

Because "the market" is so good at properly valuing arts and culture.  Seriously, this is probably the one field of human endeavor (well, second-most after protecting the natural environment for future generations) where a purely market-based framework runs aground hardest.

There really is no objective criteria for evaluating works of art. Everyone has their own values, preferences, etc. Perhaps your view that a free market produces poor quality artwork stems from the fact that your own preferences and values might not very prominent in such an environment?

[Deus Naturae]

Just because taste has a subjective component doesn't mean all art is "equal"; that there is no such thing as experience and expertise.  I reject that false dichotomy completely.  And of course I reject the approach that tries to define out of existence any value that can't be easily captured in monetary terms. I.e. the tautology of "the market is correct because I define correctness in terms of what 'the market' spits out"- which is exactly what any attempt to handwave away the cultural, educational, and aesthetic benefits of non-commercial art tries to do.

Besides, the problems with a "free market" approach to art (however constructed) are far deeper, and wide-ranging, than kvetching that new stuff isn't to one's taste.  That's ultimately a red herring.

I never said all art is equal...of course I don't believe that. My point is that every person has their own preferences and values. It's those kinds of disagreements and differences that make society exciting. That's why we have such diversity of art, music, etc. For some cultural commission to decide what people should like based on their own preferences and try to promote that is unjust and borderline dangerous. Who should decide what artwork is worthy of promotion by the state? You?