›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Secretary of the Arts

SailSail
edited February 2009 in Art!
There's a petition going around to try to get Obama to appoint a Secretary of the Arts. The arts are great and all, but I really don't understand what a Secretary of the Arts could do except make artists feel more important.

Do you think there should be a Secretary of the Arts and, if so, what would be the benefit?

Comments

  • AprecheApreche
    edited February 2009
    Maybe not so much a secretary of the arts. A secretary is usually the head of a government agency. However, I think a culture minister would be very good. Brazil has a culture minister, and he is the super creative commons awesome times a million. I think a country like Japan would do very well to have such a person, if they don't already, because culture is a very big export for them. Of course, the US exports more culture than anybody, so having one isn't a bad idea.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    edited February 2009
    Secretary of the Arts? I don't know what that position could really do... This seems silly.

    EDIT: A culture minister? Meh, alright. It sounds like an interesting idea anyhow...
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • SailSail
    I mean, so many of the artists I know are on board with this, but none of them can explain to me exactly why. Maybe some of the artists here can offer a better defense.
  • kiwi_birdkiwi_bird
    We have a Ministry of Culture in Germany, but it's task is to overlook schools and ensure that they get enough funding. Other than that the Ministry helps fund Museums, Operas, Theatres, Cabarets and arts in schools.
  • KieyKiey
    As neat as it would be to have such a department, it seems to me to be mostly a waste of money. It costs a lot of put together something like this. Maybe if they pushed Homeland Security back under Defense where it should be, then they could free up the money for something like this.

    I think mainly what would make sense to do with such an agency would be to remove the content controls the FCC seems to enforce from the FCC and give it to the Arts agency. Let the FCC be in charge of the technology, and the Arts Agency be in charge of content.
  • VigaViga
    We have a Ministry of Culture in Germany, but it's task is to overlook schools and ensure that they get enough funding. Other than that the Ministry helps fund Museums, Operas, Theatres, Cabarets and arts in schools.
    That would be nice to have here. If the Secretary of the Arts was the head of an agency of that, then I would approve. But then wouldn't Secretary of Cultural Exports be a better title? I think so.
  • kiwi_birdkiwi_bird
    That would be nice to have here.
    Though it's nice to have, they do a shit job. Schools get 100€ for a whole school year per 7 courses in most subjects, i.e.the state plans 0,57 cents per Latin student for a whole school year.
  • thaneofcawdorthaneofcawdor
    I've always thought Poet Laureate should be a cabinet-level position.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    edited February 2009
    I've always thought Poet Laureate should be a cabinet-level position.
    That would politicize the position and skew the choice.

    I think a Secretary for the Arts, or some high position, would be wonderful. In hard economic times, the Arts are seen as frivolous and expendable (not only in our schools, but in creation/consuming of art). The closest thing we currently have is the Chairman for the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA is meant to help fund the arts in the U.S., not shape, represent, or advocate for the Arts in the U.S.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • SchnevetsSchnevets
    edited February 2009
    I am all for the idea of a cultural position (although I think Minister of Culture would be better), but I think it should focus less on big industries (like the RIAA and MPAA) and more on fostering growth in other areas of art. Obviously, there's the importance of cultural exports, which are vital for a country like the United States. However, artistic intellect can also improve the US economy and help us foster communities.

    I heard on a podcast (I think Bob Edwards Weekend) about some shifts in how art is being taught in schools. While we were all just given an opportunity to paint pretty pictures or write atrocious poetry in elementary school, there's a wider push to teaching children how to appreciate art. The idea is to improve a child's taste early on, so he is more likely to keep consuming high art later on in life. Not only is there a relationship between artistic interest and literacy rates, but people who pursue artistic interests by going to museums/galleries/libraries are more likely to volunteer or participate in community events. They also spend a little bit more money on their interests: they'll buy a book rather than watch the cheapo reality show, or purchase an art print for their room instead of keeping a room empty.

    EDIT: Oh, and generic "online petitions don't work. Go out there and do something" comment.
    Post edited by Schnevets on
  • MankoonMankoon
    Although a Minister of Culture or Secretary for the Arts sounds like a nice idea, I don't think that's a smart way to spend money right now.
  • AprecheApreche
    Although a Minister of Culture or Secretary for the Arts sounds like a nice idea, I don't think that's a smart way to spend money right now.
    It doesn't necessarily have to cost any money. Just appoint someone to the job, and don't pay them any money for it. They will advise in government on matters of art and culture.
  • SchnevetsSchnevets
    Although a Minister of Culture or Secretary for the Arts sounds like a nice idea, I don't think that's a smart way to spend money right now.
    Furthermore, the government invests a lot of money into artistic development already. Giving a qualified person some more authority into how this money should be spent may actually save some money quickly

    Once again, my big issue is this position becoming a puppet for the big media industries, rather than an opportunity to aid struggling (yet talented) actors and spreading more legitimate forms of art. However, if there's a president who could set a good precedent, I think it would be Obama.
  • SailSail
    edited February 2009
    Now that I think of it, I think that state governments have done a good enough job supporting arts already. Most, if not all, major cities have designated arts districts and grants are given to museums as well as comissions for sculptures and murals in public spaces. So, why would we really need an agency at the national level to promote the arts?
    Post edited by Sail on
Sign In or Register to comment.