Previous poll Next poll

Should state government be responsible for funding a portion of the arts?

Response Percent Votes
52% 317
43% 263
Not sure
3% 20
Total 600


beatrice 6 years ago

While "the arts" covers a large area, the study of the arts is but one part of a well-rounded education. Research has shown that students who study the arts in school do better over all than those who do not. When looked at in this light, then certainly I believe most people would agree that the state government is responsible for funding the arts -- and the sciences, and mathematics, and ... as it is responsible for funding education.

In other words, hell yes!

kef104 6 years ago

Correct, it does not. Likewise, without correlation, causation is not possible. This leaves us having to determine correlation and then looking to see if other variables may be associated with both events and be closer to the actual 'cause."
All we can take from this research is that some attribute associated with those that study the arts is also associated with those that succeed at a higher rate. Maybe parents who expose children to art also are more attentive to their children's homework, or perhaps those who study art are more open to ideas and creative solutions to complex problems, who knows. There is also good research that shows learning to play an instrument increases ones mathematical abilities.

However one wishes to break down the resultant correlation, it is still safe and reasonable to argue that having exposure to art is associated with multiple benefits to society. Just because one may not like some art is not sufficient to argue that all art is bad and should be unfunded. Like scientific research, there is much to be gained by allowing multiple "types" and "styles" to experiment. Sometimes thru shear chance, magic happens. I mean where would Dr Hook be without Shel Silverstein's lyrics? While neither one is for everybody, the two together were pretty special, in their own strange way.

ljwhirled 6 years ago

Yes. Government is what we call the activities we do together as a society.

One of those activities should be art. Another one science. Another one business. Another is Education.

Without a balanced approach that includes all of these, our society becomes unhealthy.

Tom McCune 6 years ago

You would get completely different results to this poll if you re-phrased the question as: . Should the state income tax be higher than minimally necessary in order to give money to local arts organizations?

chootspa 6 years ago

Ironically appropriately named poster lives up to ironically appropriate name.

tomatogrower 6 years ago

Do you not vote? Do you really consider the government separate from the people? Granted we have many more politicians bought and paid for by big corporations, but look at what's happening to one of those politicians - Walker. You don't have a lot of respect for the founding fathers of our nations, do you? Do you participate in your community at all, besides posting on this forum? Do you work for your candidates? Do you volunteer? Do you at least mow your elder neighbor's yard? Or is it really every man for himself, and screw the others? What a good little capitalist.

People criticize Lawrence all the time, because there is always discussion about any decisions, especially for development. Yet, this is the way a government is suppose to run. People in Lawrence aren't afraid to turn off their TV's and let their reps know what they think. They aren't afraid to have an opinion on matters that affect them.

tomatogrower 6 years ago

In other words you don't attend city commission meetings. You don't run for office or volunteer for a candidate. You don't work for causes and groups in which you believe? Do you even bother voting?
Do your elderly relatives live with you so they don't have to collect evil pensions that they worked hard for, but are burdens to the almighty corporation? Or do you just put them out on the ice? Or maybe you just don't think anyone should retire? Maybe a poor house for those who didn't earn enough to get rich like you did off your "investments".

asixbury 6 years ago

They aren't telling you what art is. They're making it possible for people, especially in rural areas, to be involved in the arts in whatever form they choose. Without the government funding, the federal grants will be lost.

kef104 6 years ago

Do you need the government to tell you what skill set an MD should have? We could let everyone practice medicine and the marketplace could determine those that were any good. Capitalism could be determine how much water is in your gas, no need to watch over those that own the business. If they fail we can ignore the resultant costs of everyone whose vehicle they damaged, because the business model eventually put them out of business. Yeah! Who needs building codes? I am sure you would want to buy a house and then see later if the builder sealed the water pipes. Yes, your money is being taken. And in return, your life should be easier and safer, and maybe even enriched.

George_Braziller 6 years ago

Yeah, cwgoku. Why spend $200 for matching dollars to support a community music event in western Kansas an entire community benefits from. Guess that $0.00000000000000000000000000001 in taxes it cost you must have been pretty important. The aluminum from one beer can in your front yard could have been cashed in to offset your tragic and horrible burden for supporting the arts.

jayhawklawrence 6 years ago

Governments thoughout history have shown their respect and appreciation for the arts.

A government that does not understand why this is important is the kind of government that probably does not respect individual freedom or expression either.

Thankfully, we still live in a country where freedom is not yet dependent upon how much money you have or how much land you own.

booyalab 6 years ago

A society that forces everyone to fund other people's expression does not respect individual freedom or expression.

asixbury 6 years ago

Read my post below. The funds usually go to educational and community events; not specific art projects. And if the funds do go to an artist, it usually has a clause attached that requires community involvement in some way.

billbodiggens 6 years ago

I would venture to raise something I first heard of in the southwest part of the state when some small town was trying to update things for the community and make it a more hospitable place to live. A small, but vocal, opposition arose those of which were quickly and popularly dubbed C.A.V.E. men and women. C.A.V.E. (Citizens Against Virtually Everything.) Sometimes it just fits.

Charlie Bannister 6 years ago

We need to continue to be a capitalist society that rewards those who risk it all to create jobs and wealth, not only for themselves but for others. In the process we will then have plenty of private money with which to support the Arts. I am all for the Arts, just not for government financial support.

beatrice 6 years ago

So do you really believe we would be better off without the John Steaurt Curry murals in the state capitol building? You know, the famous one of John Brown with arms spread and the tornado twirling in the background? It was funded by the state and is possibly the best known image from Kansas. Without government funding, it never would have existed.

Of course, that isn't looking too far back into history. Take away art funded by the government during the Renaissance, and then tell us, would we be better off without those works by Michelangelo, Leonardo, etc...?

asixbury 6 years ago

The vast majority of the art funds do not go to public art. The funds usually go to art education and events, most often centered around children.

gccs14r 6 years ago

Where do you think monarchs get their money?

Topple 6 years ago

Booty from enemies driven before them!

parrothead8 6 years ago

With 2.8 million people in Kansas, and the state funding approximately $700,000 towards the arts, I think we can each afford the 25 cents per year for a good cause.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 6 years ago

Fund arts in the schools, when you graduate from school, then you are on your own.

asixbury 6 years ago

Then you support government funding of the arts, since the vast majority of the funds go to community and educational events aimed at young children.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 6 years ago

...and the spin continues. NO I don't support the government funding of the arts just as I don't support the government funding of the farmers and/or any other group that has their hands out.

When people make the decision on what they are going to do in life to earn a living and hang their shingle out, it is on them to make it happen. You see, if you or I opened a sandwich shop we would have to make it on our own as there is no one there to cover our backs. A fair system would make all live in this type of world. Every time the government takes money from the guy at the sandwich shop and gives it to the farmer or the artist, the world I live in tells me that the guy in the sandwich shop is at a disadvantage.

gccs14r 6 years ago

Art has traditionally been funded by government. No one else had the money for it.

Topple 6 years ago

No one else had the money for it, or no one else cared enough to fund it?

Tom McCune 6 years ago

Art has traditionally been funded by kings, princes, noblemen, and wealthy merchants.

jayhawklawrence 6 years ago

A government that relies completely on the "invisible hand of the market" will end up being a government that is ruled by tyrants.

Our country was founded based on Christian ideals that are universal among all major religions. It was not founded based on competitive capitalism.

We need to get our myths straight.

tbaker 6 years ago

"The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects forbids it in the disposition of the public moneys." - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Shelton Gilliam, 1808

Commenting has been disabled for this item.