Should government be expected to prop up museums and art galleries that could not survive on their own in the market?

Should government be expected to prop up museums and art galleries that could not survive on their own in the market?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=WNsu4PHD2B8
youtube.com/watch?v=vvBrEcI-niU
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

no /thread

But... they enrich society

is it the governments fault that most people are uncultured swine that can't enjoy the fossils of demon lizards from 1000 years ago?

No. Close the museums.
But retain the artifacts and place them in the archives so they are not lost forever. Then allow for guided tour by reservation.

What makes you think they wouldn't survive? Many people like museums and shit, they're especially hotspots for education.

This thread belongs in a museum!

Museums yes, art galleries no.

Let's agree to unite comedy clubs with museums and charge half price

Absolutely not. Its communism and muh culture is fucking gay.

Art isnt educational. Parks and museums only if they are truly educational and provide a positive interactive experience for attendees. Nonprofit obviously

We bombed all of theirs

I agree with this.

>Go to museum in USA pay 20 bucks

>Go to Europe
>Free museum days

Absolutely, the question is : who should choose which galleries or museums to subsidize? I say it all should be elective, possibly via mobile application.

Wrong, aus tourist here. Paid to get into one but it was a great cultural experience.

No, private collectors can take all of that shit .

...

Libertards ITT. Yes, of course.

Yes. The same way the government funds research.

People indirectly benefit from it so nobody will pay for it alone.

I agree with other people here, though, and I am referring only to museums, with educational merit, and that includes historical museums / historical art museum.

What's the justification? Externalities?

I'd understand it if they were museums and galleries that helped foster in a sort of cohesive cultural environment, but most of them probably don't

>yfw the holocaust museum in D.C. is free

>art isn't educational
>his 2D waifu taught him how to love

So ungrateful.

Yes but only few and selected, not every modern art bullshit museum.

They should and the museums should be free.
Teaching your population about history is a good thing and a good use of taxpayer dollars.

I was thinking more like the MOMA in Manhattan, with art and history from all over the world, some of it ancient. I think it fosters a cohesive cultural environment. I also know that when I travel I always visit all the museums and have genuinely "learned" the entire history of a few countries from its museums alone.

But the avant-garde art galleries with a few weird sculptures thrown together and an "abstract" painting is not the same at all. That shouldn't be publicly funded at all. Really I guess I think there are just a few examples of national museums (especially the one in Korea, the Smithsonian in the US, etc.) which I think should be funded because they foster a strong cultural identity, are educational, and create a cohesive cultural environment as you said, but the rest should be on their own.

Most people have no idea museums like the MOMA are free though, cause the signs all say "$25 recommended fare" and everyone sees everyone else paying but if you go up and flat out say "I don't want to pay more than 1 cent. Please let me in," they kind of begrudgingly do it and loads of museums I know of are like that in the US.

Museums can be justified as a form of public education. It also ties citizens to their past, which leads to a more cohesive culture.

Museums in Houston have a free day as well as the zoo I believe. Only exception is special exhibits that travel through. You might have shit museums tho. None free days are expensive as fuck tho

Why do you make the distinction?

They clearly don't if nobody pays to go and see them

Public museums are revised by the government entity in charge of managing it. Sooo that's bad

as long as it doesn't get out of hand. I think we have a reasonable amount of fundage for them.

Of course you fucking mongaloid.

Museums, art galleries and such form the basis of culture. Without culture you don't have a nation, just a mass of individuals. Look at the countries who don't prize their heritage and history - African countries, Middle Eastern countries, South American countries. Is that really where you want to live?

Museums, yes.
Art galleries, no.

They should be funded by advertising and product placement. Why should people be allowed to look at art or history or indeed, anything at all, without being sold to, its just not right.

mhhh, I feel like I'm missing something here

hows 146,200,000 sound?

If you don't believe in the freemarket, you're a filthy marxist vermin scum

FREE
R
E
E

MARKET
A
R
K
E
T

No.

Museums can survive on their own in the market, assuming that they are important.

>Art galleries, no.
Stop liking things I dont like ! *autistic screeching intensifies*

I will see if I can slip it past the bureaucrats.

youtube.com/watch?v=WNsu4PHD2B8

How did we invent fire? Simple! The official Bear Grylls's Man Vs Wild (tm) Survival Kit (patent pending) does the job in a jiffy! That's how Og here managed to avoid having his Mammoth raw; looks like a nice medium rare to me!

Yes I assume we should cut out public libraries too. It's not the governments fault that most people are uneducated

Good museums can survive, and good art galleries are part of good museums, so why prop up shitty ones?

libraries are only used by bums looking at porn on the computers nowadays, old man. libraries are ancient history

the library, I forgot it exsist, I must check it out. I think they have a video section now.

youtube.com/watch?v=vvBrEcI-niU

Art culture and the preservation of artifacts.

Just because a museum is shitty and doesn't get people i the door, doesn't mean it's not holding something of great value in it's warehouse.

Also, if only the good (read, in populous regions, because lets be honest, where there's people, there's money.) survive, than anyone outside of those areas have no access to physical history or culture

it's so fucking true. They have replaced most books by music, computers and toys. The library have become nothing more than a social gathering place for the poor.

That's not what it is. It's that there needs to be come barrier to entry or standard for what should be publicly funded and what shouldn't be. Otherwise anyone who calls his work an art museum would receive funding. And clearly that's not possible so demanding a standard is reasonable.

Saying good museums will survive is like saying good research will fund itself. But nobody pays directly for research even when it ultimately benefits them.

Nah libraries are a gold mine of information without all the advertisements, spam, Google filters, trackers, cookies.

Are you fucking kidding me? The information one can find at a decent university library or even the fiction at a well-funded (this is critical) public library VASTLY outweighs the sort of bullshit pseudo-propaganda and advertisements that litters the web. It's like the internet but without all the fucking cancer.

Libraries are important. Stop being a fucking Jew.

You people have shitty libraries.

A good library or a good university library is the hallmark of education and progress.

Now, whether libraries should kick out all the fucking bums is different.

top kek. this nigger thinks the government hasn't infiltrated libraries with their filthy marxist agenda.

I dare you to go to your local library and try to find a Martin Heidegger book.

People could pay a membership fee to go to libraries

I don't think it's actually poor people that use them. Probably old people who read a book a week. Why can't they pay for it?

>Absolutely not. Its communism and muh culture is fucking gay.
How Maoist of you wanting to destroy cultural artifacts and things of national pride.

On a semi-related note.
I saw a tv-debate sometime ago, some pretentious show with two museums directors, one was from a museum governed by the state and the other was from a privately owned museum.
They debated quotas for female artist, apparently the museum that was runned by the government had a significantly higher percentages of female created content than the privately owned.
I can't help to wonder, if what you are paying for when subsidizing a museum, is a certain policy rather than public education.
It appear as if public owned institutions make different priorities when deciding what they shall exhibit than museums governed by the free market.

>"shut down museums
>but retain artifacts in archives
>only get to see by reservation"

So you mean a shitty museum that you have to have a reservation for?

>Otherwise anyone who calls his work an art museum would receive funding
Doesn't happen in the UK & I'm pretty sure it doesn't happen in the commie hating US either, so you've got nothing to worry about have you.

So fucking Jewish sounding.

>Yes goy, pay us an extra fee to access the world's literature or switch over to the Internet where we fucking own you. Good goy, you don't wanna pay for all that free knowledge right? Just use the internet and we'll handle it for you

For fuck's sake, a man is supposed to be able to learn about the world. I am NOT saying colleges should be free or any of that communist fucking bullshit, I'm just saying that a tax-paying citizen has the right to learn about what's going on in the world and a library is a kind of communal place to do that.

museum of fake dinosaurs should be closed. They serve no purpose besides pushing the evolution lie.

Without access to libraries I wouldn't have been able to do research for my business & wouldn't have become the multi millionaire I am today, they're a valuable asset to any society.

He has a right to do it, just not at anyone else's expense.

Depends on the museum and the gallery. If it showcases modern art it should be left to its own devices for financing.

>modern art
Again, another case of stop liking things I don't like, taste in art is highly subjective & you are not the gatekeeper.

>Should government be expected to prop up museums and art galleries that could not survive on their own in the market?
The problem lies with specialization.
Look at what user says here: He is right.

So there seems to be consensus on the fact things shall be kept divided. But this is a good reasoning if you are creating a start-up. On the contrary, museums are not intended for profit (in the monetary sense). So there is no point in having them secluded from other activities.

Same goes for theatres. Why don't people set up acting scenes in pubs? Of course there might be distractions all around, but it worked fine in the 1600s so why wouldn't it work nowadays? Just because some elitist art critique thinks you cannot mix drama and laughs or you cannot mix pictures and glasses of wine?

Museums are a great resource, but many will never go there just because. Real solution is to mix museums with other events. Try to have a Green Day concert at the art gallery... or try to open bars surrounded by artwork. That will do.

u right

museums, yes. art galleries, yes

>Green Day concert at the art gallery
The fuck would I wanna listen to that shit when I'm trying to quietly enjoy looking at beautiful art, fuckin proll.

All art galleries?

#notallartgalleries

Make the museums publicly owned, either by the city it resides in, the state or the federal government. That's what they do with a lot of non big city theatres. They bring in people and preserve culture.