THW Subsidize Traditional Art of Minority Culture

THW Subsidize Traditional Art of Minority Culture A cultural subsidy is a payment from the government to specific cultural industries to ensure that some public policy purpose in culture (e.g. multiculturalism, bilingualism, minority and languages, and preservation of traditional dance, music, food, art or other practices) are preserved and maintained in society. Cultural subsidies work similarly to other forms of subsidies such as industrial and consumer subsidies and have similar goals of expansionary economic results and increased utility for their targeted recipients. Implementation: Cultural subsidies are distributed in the form of grants and payment from the government to various institutions, groups or citizens who are seen to meaningfully contribute to their society’s culture. Some of the most familiar efforts are: free museum entrances for children and seniors, public art instalments, government funding for afterschool art-based programs and government grants to culturally focused non-profits. Government support for the arts has a long history, with members of the aristocracy having acted as patrons for artists, including Beethoven, Mozart, and Shakespeare. Now, artists, including poets, playwrights, painters and sculptors, and performance artists, receive subsidies or grants from governmental and non-governmental organizations. Much of the funding these organizations receive is provided by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which was founded in 1965. In the mid-1990s, the NEA came under fire for supporting artists who produced and exhibited what many considered objectionable, even pornographic, work masquerading under the rubric of “art.” Since then, the NEA has focused more on supporting mainstream efforts like community theater and arts education. The cry to abolish the NEA has subsided and Congress has expressed its approval of the NEA. Although the NEA is again on firm footing, the legitimacy of government subsidies for artists is still in question.
It will preserve  Traditional Art of Minority Culture	It will create discrimination
The creative process needs time. If artists must work to make ends meet, when will they have the time and the creative energy to complete their projects? Without federal funding for grants, few artists will be able to continue their work and maintain a reasonable standard of living. Artists will be forced to enter the workforce and abandon art.	The financial struggle that artists experience is one way to weed the good artists from the bad. Only those who are truly dedicated will make the sacrifices needed to succeed. Others will enter other occupations where their creativity and talents can be rewarded. Artists could also find paid employment that will enable them to continue working on their art. If an artist’s work is worthy of financial support, that artist will find a patron from the private sector who will support him or her.
The NEA costs each American only 36 cents a year. Although some NEA money is used to support arts that are traditionally supported by individuals with higher incomes, much of the NEA budget supports artists who work with programs like art education in schools and community theater. Projects like these benefit all children and give people across the country ways to contribute to making their community a better place.	Government subsidies for art simply take money away from middle-class and low-income people to subsidize a self-indulgent hobby for the rich. The kind of art that the majority of Americans are interested in, popular movies and music, for example, is not subsidized. Just as a rock band should not receive government funds to make ticket prices lower, neither should operas or ballets. Let the rich who want to attend these kinds of performances pay full price; why should taxpayers underwrite bargain prices for entertainment for the wealthy?
Arts in America are a unifying experience. People from different backgrounds can communicate through art and share experiences and talents. Artistic expression is central to who we are as Americans and as human beings. Supporting artists is crucial to preserving our values and transmitting our American heritage to future generations. In addition, federal support of artists is patriotic because art builds and preserves American traditions. The grant process, because it is run by artists, ensures the independence of the NEA and reduces the danger of censorship.	Subsidies could function as a way to reward artists who are creating what the government prefers. In this way, subsidies could lead to government censorship of art to silence critics. Communist dictatorships subsidized “patriotic art” but squelched independent artists. Having artists rely on the government for their “daily bread” risks their artistic integrity; how could they be social critics and advocate for change in the system, when it is the system that is putting food on the table? The strings attached to subsidies make them potential weapons against democracy.
Tradition is on the side of those in power supporting the arts. Since the Renaissance, composers and artists have been supported by popes, kings, and other patrons. In our democracy, this burden falls to government to ensure that the next Mozart or Beethoven will not forgo his or her artistic vision for lack of funds.	Historically, patrons did not support unknown and unproven talent. Artists gained patronage only after proving their worth. In the current system of subsidies, new, unproven, and often substandard artists receive grants. Artists who are already successful generally do not need the grants to meet their living expenses. Mozart and Beethoven, if they were living today, would find many opportunities in the private sector and would not need to rely on government subsidies.
The Mapplethorpe and Serrano cases are isolated incidents. The vast majority of art that is produced through subsidies is art that most taxpayers would support. The NEA has made many changes in the way it awards grants since those incidents. In fact, many of the same members of Congress who called for an abolition of the NEA over this issue voted for an increase in funding in July of 2002. Congress mandates that the criteria of decency and respect be used in evaluating grant proposals. Overall, the artwork supported by subsidies would make most Americans proud.	Subsidies usually support artists who have created art that most people object to. Robert Mapplethorpe with his homoerotic photographs and Andres Serrano with his photograph of a crucifix submerged in his own urine are specific examples of artists who taxpayers have supported. Artists should have the freedom to create any type of art they want, but taxpayer money should not be used to fund projects that are indecent. If private funds are used, then the American people cannot claim they have involuntarily supported the creation of perverse and vile works.