全友天天木门,快递工作时间,金庆喜
|
3.2 Distortion to the resource allocation of the art market
Many economists oppose governments’ funding of the arts from the perspective of the original economic liberalization, that is, when a market can operate effectively, it does not require government intervention, nor does it require macro-control or tightening policy, and market mechanisms optimize resource allocations (Pepperell, 2018). So why the arts are the exceptions, why the art can not be determined by market mechanisms like other commodities, governments’ subsidizing the arts make some unpopular art forms in the market survive, and those market-recognised that need to be supported are not funded. For example, there are many kinds of traditional opera in China, every year, the government has to invest huge amounts of money to cultivate the relevant talents (Zheng, 2017). However, in fact, not many viewers pay attention to these ancient operas.
Art does have the nature of goods, but art is not entirely a commodity. It also has cultural inheritance, social function, artistic value, etc. These qualities cannot be measured by money. Moreover, the art market is a special market, and it cannot be viewed by the theory of market liberalization. For those ancient traditional arts, it allows modern people to understand the past state of their ancestors (Labrune et al., 2018). They represent a country, a national cultural tradition and even a national spirit and self-identity. If they are not funded, they are likely to disappear quickly, which is a huge loss for a country and a nation. Taking China's Peking Opera as an example, it is far less popular than today's rap, pop and rock music, but it reflects Chinese traditional culture, aesthetic taste and history. If the government does not sponsor the development of Peking Opera, it is likely to disappear, but with the support of the government, it can continue to develop and become one of the most important art forms for people of other countries to understand Chinese traditional culture.
4.0 Discussion
In the essay, my point of view is to support that governments should subsidize the arts. The reasons are mainly from the following three levels. First, considering the understanding of artistic value, art has many values such as cultural inheritance, art appreciation, business, social harmony, The development of the arts has important significance and value for social development. Second, for the understanding of the relationship between wealth and art, a artist needs money for life, and needs money for art creation, and needs money for communication. It can be said that the development of the arts is inseparable from the support of money, and art has its particularity. It is impossible to fully commercialize, so it is hard to achieve self-sufficiency by art itself. Third, it is the understanding of government-sponsored art. Art is so important, and art development is inseparable from economic support. Then government-sponsored art has natural rationality. Although governments’ subsidizing brings some problems, these problems are related to a government's sponsorship and management, which does not mean that governments should not subsidize the arts.
5.0 Conclusion
I believe that governments should subsidize the arts because art is of high importance to contemporary society, and art is not self-sufficient like other products or industries. It needs financial support, and governments’ subsidizing can help art to solve this problem. Of course, governments should follow certain principles to avoid damage to the independence of art.
References
Bogt, H. and Tillema, S. (2016). Accounting for trust and control: public sector partnerships in the arts. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 37(6), 5-23.
Heilbrun, J. and Gray, C. M. (2001). The economics of art and culture. Cambridge University Press, 240-270.
Floss, H. (2018). Same as it ever was? The Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura and the origins of Palaeolithic art. Quaternary International, 491(20), 21-29.
Guinard, P. and Margier, A. (2018). Art as a new urban norm: Between normalization of the City through art and normalization of art through the City in Montreal and Johannesburg. Cities, 77(7), 13-20.
Jue, J. (2017). The extent of engagement in art making and exhibition by art therapy practitioners and students. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 55(9), 32-39
Keynes, J. M. (2012). The collected writings of John Maynard Keynes. Cambridge University Press, 2, 295-372.
Labrune, E. et al. (2018). An ART score to note objectively the quality of an ART procedure. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 221(2), 52-57.
Naletelich, K. and Paswan, . K. (2018). Art infusion in retailing: the effect of art genres. Journal of Business Research, 85(4), 514-522.
Peacock, A. T. (1992). Economics, cultural values and cultural policies. Journal of Cultural Economics.2(10), 459-468.
Pepperell, R. (2018). Chapter 19: art, energy, and the brain. Progress in Brain Research, 237, 417-435.
Sooudi, O. K. (2018). Market memories: collective memory and art market change in Mumbai. Poetics, 29, 9.
Zheng, J. (2017). Contextualizing public art production in China: The urban sculpture planning system in Shanghai. Geoforum, 82(6), 89-101.
|
