Hacker News Reader

Comment by timwiseman | Hacker News Reader

No, it is that I do not want to be forced to pay directly or indirectly for someone else to appreciate art, literature, or music, especially not when there are kids down my block that are barely able to read and pot holes in the roads I drive on. That truly is not a high priority for a society with other more pressing problems.

I am however quite willing to pay with my own money so that I and my family can learn to appreciate literature and culture. I am also quite happy to support the artists whose work I enjoy. But I am not happy to have tax money support it until long after ever child learns the basics well and the local police department is fully funded.

[Edit, fixed typo.]

View on HN

You seem to think that these are independent issues. I.e. if we just throw more money at basic literacy, road-maintenance, and policing, then society will be better. If we throw money at art and cultural education, then we're losing out on money for the above.

The fact is that a lot of social problems stem from cultural problems. You can keep throwing money and teachers at those kids down the street, but it won't get them to read. Instead, you need to change their culture (and their parents') to one of scholarship.

I find this "don't spend my tax dollars on anything that doesn't directly benefit me" attitude to be mean-spirited, but more importantly, to be one of the cultural problems that helps to foster the ills you cite.

I find this "don't spend my tax dollars on anything that doesn't directly benefit me" attitude to be mean-spirited,...

He advocated spending money to educate illiterate people rather than already-educated people. I think it's pretty clear he isn't illiterate, so how is he advocating only spending money that directly benefits him?

Yummyfajitas said it quite nicely, but permit me to say it on my own behalf.

I am not at all saying do not spend my tax dollars on things that don't directly benefit me. I said that we should not spend it on things like art and literature until after we have taken care of things like basic education, infrastructure, law enforcement, and yes even universal healthcare and gaurunteed access to sufficient food.

I am a great lover of America and I think (with perhaps some admitted bias) that it is a truly great country. But I know kids on my own block that can barely read and I pass by a homeless shelter with large crowds outside it on my way to work, and there is an active police officer sitting behind me in law school class because he doesn't make enough to support his family comfortably. I strongly object to spending tax money on art and literature until long after those issues are fixed.

And no, throwing money at those issues won't fix them, but it would be a start. Money is not sufficient for a solution, but I suspect it is necessary (or at least highly helpful).

It sounds like you have the attitude of the government just providing the basics. I've taught you to read to go read what you want. But without access to a decent library, without training on how to appreciate literature it seems that your point of view is to utilitarian. The arts enrich us all in ways that can't be counted merely by monetary utility. I would like to live in a society that recognizes this and is willing to support it. It's not like it would cost a great deal or that the money could not come out of the budgets of other government agencies. It doesn't have to mean an additional expense.

Maybe my experience wasn't typical, but my liberal arts classes in college were a joke. They were crowded, hurried, narrowly focused, and taught by professors that didn't seem to have the time or the inclination to provoke the students into new ways of thinking at all.

I suppose it's different at schools that can afford to staff these classes at 1:15 student teacher ratios with good teachers but the money that was spent on making me a "well rounded" student would have gone a lot further if I'd just been given a pile of books to read and some time at a quiet desk.

Ok, I read too much into your comment, so I apologize for the "selfish" remark.

I've composed a few half-responses, but I'm wrestling with what I'm trying to articulate.

I think what it comes down to is that the issues you cite will never be fully fixed. Second, but more importantly, the amount of money required to support cultural projects is tiny compared to, say, infrastructure upgrades.

So, I object to the idea that we can't do any of that (with tax dollars) until these other things are done. In reality, if we adopt that attitude, it'll be too easy for fear-mongers to kill any cultural project.

There is the thorny issue of the government using tax dollars to fund art work that I hate, or that offends me, but one of the cultural goods I value is a tolerance of that. I.e. I don't like that, but I'm glad to live in a society that could produce it, alongside the stuff I do like.

Many of the problems you name have little or nothing to do with lack of funding. You can't fix poverty by throwing money at it. At least, nobody has ever managed to do it.

Interesting you mention the kids who are barely able to read while saying you don't want to pay for someone else to appreciate art, literature, music, etc. What sort of reading do you have in mind for these kids to learn? Should we just teach them how to read an operating manual for machinery or the instruction set for putting something together? Reading is an essential part of learning to appreciate art, music, literature.

I think it was Socrates that said the unexamined life is not worth living. I guess I'd like to give everyone a chance at having a life worth living by exposing them to thoughts, ideas, and experiences that are essential to an enriched human life. This means teaching us all how to appreciate art, literature, music, etc. It also has the added bonus of making society a better place to live.

I think they should have the ability to read anything and everything they want or need to. If they choose to read only operating manuals then they will at least be able to. If they choose to read Faust, The Inferno, and Paradise Lost, they should be able to. I am troubled when we want to spend tax money to help people who already have basic education appreciate art and literature when we are not doing enough to make sure everyone learns the basics first.

As to the Socrates quote, I think he was right. But I believe he was talking about introspection, not art, literature, and music created by someone else. And we as a society should be concerned with making sure everyone learns the basics they need to function in modern society before we worry about making sure those priveleged with already having those basics down can appreciate art on taxpayer money.

If we teach someone the skills they need to earn a respectable living they will then have every opportunity to pursue the arts with the money they earn. If we spend taxpayer money supporting the arts for those who are already earning a middle class income, we may very well be short changing those who are not.

I am personally a great fan of literature, theater, and certain types of music. But I purchase my enjoyment of those things with my own money because my father made sure I got a good basic education that enabled me to go to college first then get a solidly middle class job and now pursue law school at night while I work. I went to public school but my parents especially my father provided me his own time and materials bought with his own money to supplement that to make sure I learned well. I want to make sure that children whose parents cannot or simply do not do that still have the same chance I did.

That's great that you benefited from good parent(s). I wish everyone was equally well off. I think it's OK to allow people to enrich their lives by exposing them to the arts. It's a pittance to do so in comparison to war, a prison-industrial complex, ag subsidies, etc.

EDIT: I should say to allow government to provide people with the opportunity to enrich their lives.

IMHO, this is shortsighted. Art is of almost zero practical use. Investing a tiny fraction of society's resources in art is a sign of a society that has evolved beyond the starvation stage.

Are you saying that all art should only be commissioned by rich private interests? No investment in art by the public? You would demolish the National Mall, Statue of Liberty and other such art works?

Or do you draw the line at hoity-toity works (as decided by whom?).

IMHO, it is super important that societies develop the "refined" sides of the brain to control our atavistic instincts.

No he is saying that there is a slight flaw in the logic that:

1, An educated population is good for society.

2, Education happens by going to university

3, People that don't want to study hard and become doctors/engineers/scientists can go to university and do media studies.

5, Since they have been to university they are educated and therefore good for society - see 1.

6, Since more people want to do media studies than chemistry the chemistry depts are be shut down to increase funding for media studies.

There's obviously a spectrum between fully investing in arts & culture studies and fully investing in STEM disciplines or public infrastructure, so let's try to avoid superlatives - in an ideal world, all disciplines would be fully funded and productive, but I doubt anyone in this forum is claiming that we should cut off funding entirely for anything, and certainly not destroy(!) existing art.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com