The question of to what degree the arts should be subsidized with tax founds seems to come up at regular intervals. Oftentimes after tax money has helped finance some especially controversial piece of art.
My own position is heavily influenced by economic theory. If the cost both in terms of money and labour put in to some artistic creation is lesser than the pleasure it generates for its audience, it's a worthy endeavor. If on the other hand the cost necessary for the creation of said object is greater then the value its audience places on it, it is wasteful and should not come in to existence. Since the money and labour put in to its creation could be put to better use. That is basically my criteria for separating 'good' art from 'bad' art, that is art that should be produced and art that should not be produced.
This is also the criteria which the marketplace uses when judging products. An artist who is able to attract an audience large enough to cover his expenses will be able to stay in the profession while those who's creations the public is unwilling to pay for will be unable to live off their artistic talents and forced to put their labour to better use.
Once the government starts funneling money in to the creation of art this will no longer hold true. Artists who would do fit my criteria will no longer have to pass the test of the marketplace and will be able to stay in their current profession. Leading to the creation of art which costs exceed its benefits.
More troubling it will also lead to art which would fit my criteria of 'good' art not being produced, art which would have come in to existence if it wasn't for government involvement. Since people have a limited apatite for art, all artists are de facto competitors for the attention of the public. Tax subsidies will enable government favored art to be offered at a lower price or even for free. Making it very hard for unsubsidized art to compete, unless it is far superior to the government backed art. This disruption to the market mechanism will lead to artists who previously would have been able to live off their work be forced out of the profession, depriving the public of worthy art.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
Democracy contra liberty
The political concepts ‘liberty’ and ‘democracy’ are usually seen as closely related, with one being necessary for the other to be possible. Yet in some cases they can appear to be in conflict with each other.
In the United States right now there is a judicial debate over the constitutionality of the Presidents health care plan. Once a contested law reaches the Supreme Court these two political principles can be seen as being in conflict. In the American system the peoples right to collectively decide on the laws that govern them is strictly limited by constitution intended to protect individual freedoms, in a sense a highly undemocratic idea, one that prioritizes the individual over the community.
If democracy is thought of as a system to control the power of the state by making it subject to the will of the people, in order to protect the individual citizen. Then democracy is a mean in order to further individual liberty. Then it also makes sense to place limits on the ability of the collective citizenry to act in a manner contradictory to aim of democracy, which would be individual liberty.
If democracy instead is thought of as an end in of itself, as a superior system to regulate human activity, then placing limits on it would be folly. It would constrain the ability of the people to create the best possible conditions under which to live their lives.
The current American system would seem to have been crafted with a view of democracy more in line with the first of these two perspectives. My own country of Sweden would seem to have a democracy shaped by a view of democracy closer to the second of these perspectives, where the citizenry is trusted to a greater extent not to use the political process to strip themselves of their freedom and given more room to violate the perceived rights of the individual if the benefits to the group is considered great enough. The source of these differing views on democracy can be debated but the Sweden being a much more homogeneous society likely played a part.
In the United States right now there is a judicial debate over the constitutionality of the Presidents health care plan. Once a contested law reaches the Supreme Court these two political principles can be seen as being in conflict. In the American system the peoples right to collectively decide on the laws that govern them is strictly limited by constitution intended to protect individual freedoms, in a sense a highly undemocratic idea, one that prioritizes the individual over the community.
If democracy is thought of as a system to control the power of the state by making it subject to the will of the people, in order to protect the individual citizen. Then democracy is a mean in order to further individual liberty. Then it also makes sense to place limits on the ability of the collective citizenry to act in a manner contradictory to aim of democracy, which would be individual liberty.
If democracy instead is thought of as an end in of itself, as a superior system to regulate human activity, then placing limits on it would be folly. It would constrain the ability of the people to create the best possible conditions under which to live their lives.
The current American system would seem to have been crafted with a view of democracy more in line with the first of these two perspectives. My own country of Sweden would seem to have a democracy shaped by a view of democracy closer to the second of these perspectives, where the citizenry is trusted to a greater extent not to use the political process to strip themselves of their freedom and given more room to violate the perceived rights of the individual if the benefits to the group is considered great enough. The source of these differing views on democracy can be debated but the Sweden being a much more homogeneous society likely played a part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)