黄色导航,画家陈鹏,贷易查导航
|
3.0 Discussion
The author's opinion about this argument is supporting governments’ subsidies for art. The reasons are elaborated from the following three aspects.
3.1 Discussion on the publicity of art
Art is the combination of human and social consciousness, spirit, civilization, and aesthetics. It is a valuable spiritual asset of human society. It is of great significance to the existence and development of human society and its inheritance. Therefore, the public nature of art is an undeniable, many scholars’ justifying asking the government for subsidies on the grounds of the public nature of the arts is appropriate. Judging from the opponents' reasons, the core of their opposition is not opposition to the public nature of art. Instead, it opposes that in the process of subsidizing the arts, governments haves created a series of incidents that harm the public interest. Therefore, it should not oppose governments to subsidize art. Instead, it should oppose some policies and measures that governments currently use to subsidize art, requiring that governments should help the arts to better serve the general public by improving these measures. Improvements can include understanding public demand for the arts, increasing public and experts’ participation in the formulation and implementation of art-subsidized policies, reducing governments’ inappropriate intervention in art-subsidized policies, and formulating remedial policies to make up for the inevitable consequences brought by subsidies for art and so on (Peacock, 1969; Mulcahy, 1982).
3.2 Discussion on the independence of art
Art has its own characteristics, that is, the creation of art should be independent. The idea of opposing governments’ subsidizing art holds that it can easily cause governments’ interfering with the independence of artistic creation. However, the principle proposed by Keynes (2012) is very good for distinguishing between government subsidies and government intervention. The purpose of governments’ subsidizing art is to bring art to the public who are deprived of access to art and to activate public creativity and appreciation of the arts; if there is a universal opportunity for people to come into contact with traditional and contemporary art, new works of art will be in unexpected places. The purpose of governments’ subsidizing art is not merely to protect certain arts but to satisfy the public's cultural needs. In short, opposing bureaucracy, supporting the arts, protecting the freedom of creation, and protecting the rights and interests of citizens is the basic principle of government-sponsored art, so long as governments abide by the principle to subsidize art, those doubts about the independence of art can be dispelled, and in reality, there is a successful case of governments’ sponsoring art without affecting its independence, that is the music and art promotion society in the early 20th century. Therefore, it should not oppose governments’ sponsoring the arts. Instead, it should be concerned about whether governments comply with the principle when they sponsor the arts (Keynes, 2012).
3.3 Discussion on the commercialization of art
One reason for opposing governments’ sponsored art is that it not only does not help to stop the commercialization of art but exacerbates the commercialization of art, which is unfavorable to the development of the arts. However, art commercialization is not based on the state-sponsored art, the commercialization of art began many years before the beginning of capitalism. Lots of the art creation in the world contains commercial elements. Therefore, the commercialization of art today can not be blamed on state sponsorship. it should not oppose the state sponsorship of art but oppose the over-commercialization of art, including the state can not choose which art to sponsor for commercial purposes, it should not for the reason of sponsorship to ask that art should be commercialized, the independence of artistic creation should not be affected, and work of art should not be excessively hyped and exposed for commercial interests (Peacock, 1992).
4.0 Conclusion
The author supports the concept that governments should subsidize the arts, it should not oppose governments to subsidize the arts, but ask governments to help the arts to better serve the public by improving subsidy measures; it should concern about whether governments comply with the principles that they should abide; it should avoid the over-commercialization caused by governments’ sponsoring the arts.
References
Bogt, H. and Tillema, S. (2016). Accounting for trust and control: Ppublic 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.
Keynes, J. M. (2012). The collected writings of John Maynard Keynes. Cambridge University Press, 2, 295-372.
Knulst, W. (1983). Qualitative criteria and cultural policy: an examination of the normative basis for government policy on art and the media in the Netherlands. Poetics, 12(4–5), 357-382.
Peacock, A. T. (1969). Welfare economics and public subsidies to the arts. Manchester School, 37.
Peacock, A. T. (1992). Economics, cultural values and cultural policies. Journal of Cultural Economics.
Mulcahy, K. V. (1982). The rationale for public culture. CO: Westview Press, 302-322.
Williams, R. (1989). Politics of modernism: against the new conformists. Verso, 190-220.
Williams, R. (1989). Resources of hope: culture, democracy, socialism.Verso, 190-230.
Zheng, J. (2017). Contextualizing public art production in China: The urban sculpture planning system in Shanghai. Geoforum, 82(6), 89-101.
|
