Should opera houses receive public funds?/Should indie rock venues?

[dead0man]

Yes/No.  Because I like opera and I support the government subsidizing things I like.

If you're not joking...how do you sleep at night?

[dead0man]

Yes/No. Being commercially unviable and having artistic value are the two key criteria and opera meets both while indie rock meets only one (and even that is doubtful if it's true as BRTD claims that he goes to these concerts and that they don't get subsidies.

And what criteria are you using for "having artistic value"? Your personal taste? Do I even need to say the can of worms the government using this arbitrary criteria opens?

Test of time is part of it. The operas that have survived since the nineteenth century has proven themselves while indie rock hasn't. And my personal taste is not a part of it - while I like opera I'm kind of cold towards ballet, which I also believe has artistic value.

The point of cultural support is to enable all people regardless of finanical means the opportunity to take part in certain aspects of culture, not to finance hobbies.

If they've proven themselves, why do they need govt support?  If the workers in the productions are making so much money and only the rich can afford to go see a show, why do they need govt support?

[dead0man]

Did you even read my post? I know you're a libertarian and won't agree with it, but as I said "The point of cultural support is to enable all people regardless of finanical means the opportunity to take part in certain aspects of culture, not to finance hobbies." So...they need government support. I'm not exactly understand how your post relates to mine or what point you're trying to make, but perhaps you can expand on it?

Why should the govt support something ONLY RICH PEOPLE GET TO SEE!  Did you even read my post?

[dead0man]

I support the government subsidizing things I like.

At least you're honest

Thank you.  I admit my position is not ideological, just purely self-interested.  And I don't see a problem with that.  Too many people are blinded by anti-government ideology to see all the things the American taxpayer can do for them.

Being selfish and using the govt to take others property for your own benifits is perfectly reasonable belief if you acknowledge you do it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could almost understand the defense of the govt giving resources to a Cajun art school that is the only one in the world that teaches a certain specific flavor of Cajun painting.  Or to pay Native Americans to do bead work or whatever.  I'd still might argue against it, but I could be convinced it's a good thing.  But Opera?  Do they support polo too?  Yachts?  Private Jets?  Canned hunts?  This is the govt subsidizing the wealthy and nothing more.  I don't understand why you guys on the left don't see that.

[dead0man]

Should I get public funds for having a monthly Battle of the Bands in my garage with 3 bands?

That depends on whether you've applied for a grant and whether your garage exercise represent any great strides in artistic or creative merit.

And who makes that call?

[dead0man]

Should I get public funds for having a monthly Battle of the Bands in my garage with 3 bands?

That depends on whether you've applied for a grant and whether your garage exercise represent any great strides in artistic or creative merit.

And who makes that call?

National Endowment for the Arts

And if they only pick things to fund that only rich people like, everybody is ok with that?

[dead0man]

You couldn't get a ticket to see a dog pee for $2.50 here   And even if tickets were that price, regular Americans still wouldn't go.  It's not fair for the govt to pay for something only a small percentage of the population cares about, ESPECIALLY if they are primarily from the wealthiest segment of that population.

[dead0man]

You couldn't get a ticket to see a dog pee for $2.50 here   And even if tickets were that price, regular Americans still wouldn't go.  It's not fair for the govt to pay for something only a small percentage of the population cares about, ESPECIALLY if they are primarily from the wealthiest segment of that population.

Sorry, that was a typo...it should have said 25 USD, I was in a hurry writing that. Anyway, that's about twice the cost of a cinema ticket here. So, it's affordable for most people. I'm not rich for instance, being a student, and few of my friends are, but we can still go.

I can only say that every opera performance I've been to has been sold out. Of course, they don't give that many. But the point is not who goes to it or anything like that. It's about the right to access certain parts of our cultural and literary heritage. It's basically the same as a public library or a museum.

Opera is not in the same class as public library's and museum's...at least not in the states.  Here it would be like the govt supporting polo or caviar farms. (they probably do)

[dead0man]

Well...why not? Why would Tosca or Rigoletto or the Magic Flute be regarded as anything less than the great literary works? That, if anything, seems completely arbitrary to me. Do you think Shakespeare's plays are worth less than books too?

Because most Americans have no clue who Tosca or Rigoletto is.  We know who Shakespeare is.

But I don't think any artists should get funds from the state.  If we as a civilization are really gaining much from these things, they'll find a way to stick around.  Or they wont, because they aren't that important.  Lots and lots of what once where very important pieces of culture have past on because they became less and less important.  From Tosca to Abba.  What makes Opera more important to an American in 2007 than say, Polka?  I'm sure more Americans enjoy Polka over Opera.  What makes Opera as an art so special?  Because it's old and European?

But again, my biggest problem with it is that it's a rich mans thing.  Rich mans things shouldn't be supported by the govt, especially the Federal govt.

[dead0man]

IIRC Polka is about the same sort of age as Opera and, of course, came from Europe.

That was my point.  What makes one old European art better than the other and more in need of governmental help?

[dead0man]

(I wasn't making a jab at your nationality any more than you were for bring in up Spears.  Believe it or not, most Americans know she's a joke.  Even if just 5% of Americans care about her, that's still more than 15 million people that care.  The only reason I can think of that she is on the news so much (and Paris Hilton and Lohan and the rest) is that Americans LOVE to watch a train wreck, especially a slow one with big tits and lots of money.  I like Abba.  I like Sweden, it's a beautiful country that we plan on visiting when/if we ever get to Europe.)

I still don't understand what makes Opera better than Polka.  They are both "different" and if we lost either, it would certainly change both of our cultures.

I did just go price opera tickets and I was actually pleasantly surprised.  You can get tickets in the "Family Circle" (way up top, I have no problem with that) for as little $15 on a weeknight in NYC...so that is pretty cheap.  Much cheaper than I expected.  I'll concede that opera isn't only a rich man's thing.  My ignorance has been fought and I thank you liberals (and Google).

I still don't think the Federal govt should be supporting it (states and other local govts are fine by the way).