Big Think

Benjamin Leo Bart de Groot on April 7, 2009, 4:30 PM

Support for the art or rather the lack of it seems to be something inherent in most western cultures. If what Chuck Close perceives is based on correct information, then it would make sense for the government to invest in art for the public domain i.e. museums and theaters and the like. Besides that: art is an investment whose price is not so much bound by the market (anything from an established artist will only increase in value).

On the point of art being frivolous, that is an idea based on two things. 1) In the 20th century Art has fanned out more, causing established lines about what art exactly entails to become gray areas. Some might even call it a fall of standard and even (in Hegelian terms) the end of art. 2) The main buyers in the art market are wealty individuals buisnessmen and celebrities of whom a great number (not all, mind you) see art more as an investment than a beautifull piece of culture. They may value the aesthetics, but the stable amount of profit that can be made is a little more relevant.

Now, if I were to feel really paranoid, I would say that the lack of attention from the government is because there are certain elements behind the curtains who see free expression, culture and educated though as a threat to their seats of power. “Dumb” people tend to be compliant and easy to manipulate.

In any way, there should be more attention to arts and culture, because apparently they are in higher demand than one would expect.