Chuck Close: I don’t like my tax money going to support the war in Iraq. I don’t like it buying Humvee’s in the first place, but I really don’t like buying Humvee’s that are not armor protected for our soldiers.
Would I take food out of the mouths of orphans and clothes off the back of people living in assisted care institution to give to artists? No, I wouldn’t. Is it as high a priority as global warming or the fight for the cure for AIDS, or poverty, or anything? No, I wouldn’t argue that it is.
But our government does a lot of things. It spends money on many things that are far more frivolous. In fact, I don’t think art is frivolous at al. But we spend money on things that are truly frivolous while art is seen as a frivolous expenditure.
And if you’re thinking about money as stimulus, you don’t have to look very far to see the positive affect that the arts have on the financial health of our country [USA]. More people go to see art in the museums of New York City than attend all sporting events combined. More money is spent on admission to art museums than all those sporting events put together; notwithstanding the $200 a seat price of going to a Yankee game and $10 to get into MoMA. We bring more tourism into the city than all those sporting events; and more people come here and stay in hotels to see theatre, ballet, opera, and attend art museums than come here for conventions. So, we are valuable to the communities in which we exist directly, financially. Every dollar spent in the arts has about $100 in return, in terms of the way it moves through society, whether it’s hotel rooms, and the people who are making the beds, and the people who are carrying the luggage, and the bartenders in the bars, and the people who run the restaurants. That dollar re-circulates about 100 times.
I would suggest that it’s an investment that our government could justify in terms of how it kick-starts the economy. That it is truly leveraged and that is the stimulant that our economy needs.
Recorded on: February 5, 2009
Discuss
Benjamin Leo Bart de Groot on April 7, 2009, 4:30 PM
Support for the art
or rather the lack of itseems 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 celebritiesof 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.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register