No, it wouldnāt. The funding may be too high (massive?) or too low, but for a popular sport with heritage significance, the mere fact that not everyone enjoys it is nothing to get bruised over.
No argument from me that itās an issue worth debating, but the question of how well or how badly the government is handling its culture portfolio is not the same question as whether or not the government should have a culture portfolio at all.
Iām including sports in the definition of culture, obviously. And still wondering whether you want to stop taxpayer funding of the Olympics. If they canāt support themselvesā¦
Of course America is not homogeneous, but the tendency seems to be stronger there than anywhere else, even England.
The article you cite is about blocking the export of a painting, not seizing it from its rightful owner. Western governments arenāt into seizing artworks these days, except when rightful ownership is in question e.g. Nazi loot, or when the obscenity meter goes up to 11.
Anyway, how good or bad is the law? is not the same question as should there be a law?
Youāre mixing up two different points. I didnāt say ancient Egypt was democratic.
Oh, I see. I didnāt get a āthe gov can be involvedā vibe from your posts, but whatever. Thanks for clarifying that you and @Dr_Milker disagree about whether or not the government should be involved at all in culture. You just āfeel uneasyā about it, as you said earlier. Okay.
If we want to continue the discussion, we should probably ask whatās specifically wrong with the current Ministerās work.
Definitely. A certain Chinese artist whoās popular in the West comes to mind. I think even many people who disagree with how the National Palace Museum is run are still glad itās not selling its rare paintings and calligraphy to that guy, no matter how interesting he is.
I donāt know about this. If itās so popular why did it almost go away and why does it need government funding?
At some point sports have all changed to adapt and or gone extinct. I just think there are now superior games to play and spectate.
Iāve played in different baseball leagues here and itās pretty much self sufficient. Players and teams pay to be in. Teams mostly co-own if not have theirs own land they take care of to practice and play. Equipment is privately funded by players or sponsors. Higher up leagues have cash tournaments. I donāt see why Gaelic canāt be the same if not have enough people to make it professional and funded by private organizations to make a league.
There are of course none monetary benefits to the community but those are basically entirely for people who like the game. I doubt the game itself improves the economy of the local community to even out the costs of government money spent.
Which leads to the next point of the olympics. People arenāt too thrilled about hosting it now seeing that it doesnāt benefit the places they host as much as people wanted. And some are stuck with ghost towns and a unusable stadium they canāt afford to maintain. So the hosting question for me is debatable. But funding a team is for sure something needed as theyāre doing a service to the country and not entirely for the sport itself.
I know what it is. I just said it has produced certain stupid laws. And it has led to art seizures in the past. Not that this particular case was a seizure.
Thatās because they consider that as āreal cultureā. It is pure snobbery. How many times do you know of Taiwanese kids being forced or heavily persuaded by their parents to play the piano or violin as compared to the electric guitar or drums.
Many people especially the government and parents here have a very narrow view of what culture is ie Classical music is real culture and Hip Hop is not, or heavy metal is notā¦
I see why you would have this opinion if you donāt know enough about art and art history. If you question this, I would just not talk about something you know nothing about. The cultural minister didnāt give you a proper art education lol
I also notice you say what a load of crap as a reply when you canāt argue against it.
Let me break it down for you. Shortest I can.
Most of the art in Europe is was sanctioned by the church. Artists drew religious things. Eventually growing class of people that made money in trade and such like the Medici tool interest in art and began to sponsor artist. Humanists who painted man and nature before god. You literally see each movement with the same pattern after. If you have time, read about it so you donāt sound so uncultured and ignorant.
In the east. Most art was also originally religious. Wood cuts were printed for religious reasons. Japanese wood cut painting began to become popular along with other arts like acting etc when merchant class in edo period in edo aka modern day Tokyo. These people began to spend money on art and it flourished giving us works like the wave by Hokusai. It would influence the works into the mingei period where Europeans began seeing Japanese paintings for the first time. The artists there were shocked and never seen it. It began wildly popular and the artist there basically copied it and made the art nouveau style.
In short. People donāt give a shit about art and culture when they canāt affors to care about it. Itās not a big surprise.
Iād hardly call not believing the government should be involved in every aspect of peopleās lives an āextremely twisted world view.ā The fact that you think so says more about you than it does about me or @Andrew0409.