Bayla Singer wrote:
 
Mario Rups claimed "culture (the arts) is the soul of a country" --
>bringing me to Devil's Advocate the following:
>
>   1.  Culture is not equivalent to "the arts" -- it is neither
>       restricted to the arts, nor necessarily connected to them.
>       Unless you're going to make this a tautology, and say
>       that whatever 'expresses the soul of a people' is ipso facto
>       an 'art'.   Be careful with this one -- it would include
>       the Inquisition and ethnic cleansing as 'arts'!
>
>   2.  Government support of the arts may be as detrimental to
>       "true art" as any other single-source support.  The case can
>       surely be persuasively made that sponsors create limits as to
>       what is "worthy" or "acceptable" -- why should govt support
>       be judged qualitatively different from corporate, say, or
>       church, or wealthy-private-individual support?
 
This is not a flame!  The points are well taken.  However, I'm not sure
"single-source support" of the arts is always such a bad thing.  Case in
point:  Michelangelo didn't do too badly under papal patronage.  "True"
(great?) artists of any age seem to be able to create "true" (great?) art
regardless of, or despite, any limits imposed by patrons.  Besides, there
is rarely a single source of support for most artists and museums.  Much
may come from the government, but most of us must also rely on private and
corporate support, not to mention returns on endowments, etc.
 
This is NOT to say that all of us shouldn't be showing our support for NEA,
NEH, etc.  Let's keep those cards and letters coming!
 
 
>
>   3.  If the soul of the country is indeed involved, perhaps
>       the case is even stronger, for a separation of soul
>       and state.
>
>
>--bayla (putting up asbestos shield)  [log in to unmask]
 
Lucia I. Dorsey
Coordinator
Arthur Ross Gallery
University of Pennsylvania
220 South 34th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6380
TEL: (215) 898-4401
FAX: (215) 573-2045