It’s about what role the government should have on culture. Should they basically artificially prop up arts that are not demanded? Should they interfere with what culture is consumed and art appreciated and demanded.
If you’re not being forced to watch those movies, then I’d say you’re in a good place. Now everybody is empowered to tell stories, thanks to the Internet. Government assistance needed? Zero.
Important caveat: their efforts aren’t directed at brainwashing their own citizens, unlike a “Ministry of Culture.”
2 Likes
That’s the great debate though. In other western democracies, including Italy and Canada as well as the provinces, these exist to offer a fair playing field. They’re not about regulation so much as they are to give a choice. It’s a lot easier to have the country 10x larger to have a bigger budget. It is clear that in these democracies, policies that aim for the promotion of local culture while keeping the market open to foreign works of art is supported. If they weren’t, then these policies and ministries would be dead. That’s fine too. It’s the people’s say.
1 Like
That’s laughable. There’s a ministry of culture in almost every country.
2 Likes
Two nanny states. Thanks for helping prove my point. 
I’d say budget doesn’t matter. China spends a crazy amount on basically promoting their arts like movies. A recent high budget one flopped so badly they took it off the cinemas early. It turns out, you can’t just pay for talent when there is none.
Successful culture basically all copy from each other. No one was complaining when Japanese art dominated europe and created art nuevo style. No one has ever seen these mingei arts there, they went crazy for them and european artists copied their ideas basically and made new art.
Perhaps the effort could be used on learning a thing or two on why some cultural arts are so highly demanded and actually sending talents abroad and learning from others.
1 Like
Its mission is promoting international cultural exchange, not brainwashing U.S. citizens, but it definitely looks like a budget that could be slashed.
Perfectly valid argument. But, I also know that there are people with good ideas without the means to get it into the world. I’m more inclined to believe that the truth probably is somewhere in the middle. Youtube has shown to us that there is evidence that both sides of the debate have merit.
You said it, not me.
The beauty of art is that it’s subjective and there is a story behind it. Getting the government involved strips it of that beauty.
Sorry but this argument is incredibly dumb. Beauty my ass. Without preservation all that “beauty” wouldn’t even exist today.
I guess you guys are in favour of things like this:
Destruction of cultural heritage? That’s what Taiwan’s Ministry of Culture wants to do to CKS Memorial Hall. 
That’s entirely false, we have things survive for ages before anyone got involved.
Art can not be forced and controlled. All art movements are literally rebellions of their contemporaries if you don’t know much about art.
Yeah, think how much more could have been saved had there been proper restoration/preservation. For example, think how much less fugly Taiwanese cities would be if Japanese heritage had been saved.
This argument is like saying you’re happy that you’ve saved 10k this year when you spent 990k on hookers and drugs.
The question isn’t preservation, no one here is for the destruction of art so i don’t know why you’re going to straw man that one here…
It’s about what role the gov should have.
What are literally two things that caused all great art movements? 1. A economy where people can actually consume these things. 2. The artist rebelled against their contemporary art.
Wait!!! You forgot government!!!
It seems unlikely that anyone here is in favour of that, but there’s always an odd outlier.