Cultivate your GardenIf the following thoughts don't apply to you, just skip this page and go on your merry way. And don't take offense. I change my mind frequently, and nothing says that the following is cast in concrete. Peace.
I don't approve of government funding for the arts (which includes public broadcasting) any more than I approve of government funding for religion. There is hardly anything more personal than one's taste in art. It is quite probable that, ultimately, everything in life comes down to questions of aesthetics, and it is in the field of art that questions of aesthetics get worked out, not to say fought. So I feel it is quite unfair and unreasonable to tax the entire community to support particular aesthetic preferences. Perhaps I can make my point more clearly by translating the case into another field -- religion. Let me put it this way: I feel it is quite unfair and unreasonable for the government to tax the entire community to support the views and programs of the Buddhist persuasion, even though I personally agree with many Buddhist teachings. To go further afield, would you support government taxes to help struggling new religious sects? How about cults? Why not? Would you have a different attitude if you were a member of a sect or cult? Okay, let's take another tack. Would you support government taxes to create a Public Film Commission? They have such things in Canada and in other countries. What do you suppose makes such things necessary? Lack of public support? Could it be that what supporters of a Public Film Commission mean by "public" is not the same as what the PUBLIC means by "public"? You see? In my own estimation, it does come down to questions of aesthetics, given that semantics -- no less than politics -- is a branch of aesthetics. Since I mentioned politics in passing, consider this. How about a Public Commission to encourage the creation of new political parties? How fair or reasonable is it to force the entire community to pay for the satisfaction of the interests of a few? How many is "a few"? And how large would the interest group have to be to warrant receiving public monies for its own programs? What is the common interest? When is a group interest not a common interest? What makes art different from religion? Who decides what a "cult" is? And who decides that "cults" are not acceptable in our society? Who decides what art is worthy of receiving public support? Who rules on whether the decision methodology is appropriate, or even in the common interest? Who draws the line that divides Art from Cult? Now let's talk about health. Many people are expressing the view that the best way, or the only way, to solve the many problems of the health care system in this country is to have "nationalized" health care. Let's look at that. What exactly is "health care?" For example, who decides that electric shock is good therapy and electronic zapping of parasites is bad? Who decides that radiation therapy deserves to be covered by a health care plan and homeopathy doesn't? Would it be fair to tax all citizens to pay for a small group's trip to a health spa in Europe? Why? Or why not? You know, there is in our society a frame of mind that distinguishes "good drugs" from "bad drugs." Good drugs are legal, bad drugs are illegal. Now the same government that draws a line that separates good drugs from bad also decides what art to fund. And what treatments to pay for. And what subterfuges to use to funnel money to religious organizations -- and quite possibly to illegal (bad?) drug traffickers. Do you want to do business with such an entity? This is the same organization that colossal megacorporations like to do business with, mainly because there is so much money there, and also because they get such a kick out of dealing with all that paperwork. Does this sound like a digression? Well, it is. Let's see now, paperwork... Do you know what that brings to mind? It's really very simple. All you have to do to get money from the government is feed it the right pieces of paper. Products and services are incidental. What the government really wants is paper. And it makes sense, in a way, because paper is what makes everything "real" for the government. If a "thing" doesn't have a piece of paper to go with it, the "thing" doesn't exist. That's the way the govenment accounting system works. Do you want to do that with art? So then, back to the beginning: what am I going to do about government support for the arts? Are you ready for this? Every day of my life I am going to PRAY with all my heart that there be as much distance between Government and Art as is physically possible in this universe. Lest you interpret my views as expressions of distaste for the government, let me say this: I am a loyal citizen and supporter of our federal system of government. I believe that the principal long-term function of the federal government is to regulate the money supply and the banking system. I am probably at odds with most people on this, so you see there is little chance that I will come around to a position favoring government involvement with anything outside of the financial arena. I am something of a pluto-anarchist, though I'm sure that's the wrong word. So what's going to happen to the arts? I have news for you. Have you seen those 30,000-year-old cave paintings? Who do you think paid for them? Okay, so call me a Neanderthal. The arts are alive and well in this country, and they will do just fine, as they always have. Things go up and things go down. The pendulum swings. The loss of government funding will cause some people within the arts community to turn their attention elsewhere, and, over time, things will achieve a new balance. Darwin would vote for this, more than likely, and so would Jefferson, more than certainly. Here is my bottom line: Free people don't ask their government to support the arts; free people support the arts themselves. Let that be your motto. And it you can't handle it, well then, let someone else have it. I hope I have been of service to you with this rumination. You will receive my invoice under separate cover. Please act promptly upon receipt -- my government check is late again. Never could trust the @#&@*%.
Lance Hardie
|
In response to your request that I join you in supporting government funding of the arts, or public broadcasting, or a public health care system, or public transportation, or troubled banks, or failing tobacco companies, or foreign countries, or foreign insurrections, or the conquest of Mars, or any other activity whose survival is at dire risk without my immediate attention, the following thoughts come to mind --