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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We had a debate on this once, so I'll revive it.

The argument was pretty much between "No/No" Libertarians and people saying "Yes/No" when I brought up my point, the argument given for the double standard is that the purpose of government funding for the arts is to assist such places which are not as commercially viable. However I don't get this argument at all since opera is certainly more commercially viable than what I listen to, more people have heard of it, go to it, and it costs way more. Opera tickets often run into the range of $300, the most I've ever paid is $16. So then how are opera houses less commercially viable than some venue a couple 20somethings run and attracts usually about 30-40 people at around $8 or so a head? There is really no such argument I can see for the funding of "high art" like opera and ballet and what I enjoy except in engaging in such discrimination in favor of "high art" which is certainly making an arbitrary distinction the government should not be doing.

I wouldn't care if opera disappeared off the face of the earth and I hope to never be submitted to the torture of one, but to avoid such a double standard, I shall vote Yes/Yes.

[minionofmidas]

Opera houses are less viable because the stars are ridiculously overpayed, the directors are ridiculously overpayed, the costume designers are ridiculously overpayed, and there are vast numbers of (not overpayed) people needed. Indie venues are commercially viable only by their owners exploiting themselves and the bands who play there.
Besides, many such venues do receive some amount of public funding.

(In case you couldn't guess, I'm voting no/yes)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Besides, many such venues do receive some amount of public funding.

Not that I know of. The only case I can think of is places on university campuses being reserved for such shows by student groups, which equals a free rental of a venue. This has happened on my campus more than a few times.

I'm sure there are other such places receiving public funds which are sometimes rented by people setting up such shows, but I can't see any that caters exclusively, such as here: www.triplerocksocialclub.com. Furthermore the fact that such "high art" places are rented for this purpose blurs the arbitrary distinction even more, I went to such a show in Sioux Falls in a venue that's usually used for art exhibits and orchestral performances.

(If anyone's wondering about my legalese style of writing here, I've been doing legal briefs for the last hour which is part of my last assignment for a class, which involves mostly reading court case decisions. This can affect your writing too it appears.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There was an especially amusing episode of Yes Minister on the general subject of arts funding. Worth a watch.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you mean by opera house or indie rock venues, a single purpose entertainment facility that is used only at the discretion of an opera company or indie rock promoter, then no.  But supporting a general purpose entertainment venue that small or touring groups can frequent is worth doing, but only to the extent of subsidizing the provision of a place for such performances.  Gear, salaries, travel expenses, etc. for the entertainment group should be solely their responsibility.

[Hatman 🍁]

Yes/yes.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No/No.  If you care so much that they stay open, give a donation.

[Ebowed]

Yes/Yes

[DownWithTheLeft]

No/No.  If you care so much that they stay open, give a donation.

[The Mikado]

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

[Inverted Things]

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

Thief.

[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?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I support the government subsidizing things I like.

At least you're honest

[Gustaf]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Do I even need to say the can of worms the government using this arbitrary criteria opens?

None at all as it's used already.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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?

And that's why you don't subsidize either - no subjectivity...no problem.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

And that's why you don't subsidize either - no subjectivity...no problem.

Philistine subjectivism is the worst.

[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?

[Gustaf]

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?

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?

[Friz]

Yes/Yes.

[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?

[The Mikado]

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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

If either have some sort of unique or significant cultural value (such as having been in operation since 1820 but is now struggling due to some uncontrollable factor), or occupies a historical building, or is a particularly important part of that genre.. then yes.

If it's just a run of the mill Opera House (sounds kinda weird)/Indie rock venue, then no.

It should be taken on a case by case basis.