Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 12 Jan 1995 03:31:14 GMT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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?
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]
|
|
|