Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Boaz calls for separation of art and state
Yale Daily News: "He contended that, like religion, individuality is essential to the interpretation of art. Therefore, Boaz said, art deserves to be given the same respect as religion and kept entirely separate from government."
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
While I can see what Boaz is talking about when he speaks of a separation between of art and state, the parallel including the relationship between the church and state doesn't sound well based. One of the larger reasons why there is a separation between church and state is that the Church played a large roll in English politics, so religious persecution was often a backed by the state. Somehow, I don't see the federal government persecuting those with different artistic views anytime soon...
When it comes to art and governement, my inner liberatrian agrees with Boaz that any government hand in the arts is stifiling and likely to inhibit expression. I also agree that individuality is essentail to art and that individuality is not always able to be recognized when under governement supervision. However (and this is a big however), we are at a time in our society when governement funding is essential for the production and proliferation of new art. I find myself to be a big supporter of politicians who support the arts. So while it is all well and good to say that the goverenment should stay away from art to allow for creativity and eliminate any possibility for a governement mandated agenda in art, money is always a good thing.
Compared to other countries, what our government gives to the arts is a joke. And if there were a separation, it would be even more difficult to make a producing company financially self-sufficient while being able to produce works that the company wants to produce 100% of the time.
I can definetly see what Boaz is talking about, but I agree with the idea that much of the arts are funded by the govermnet and would disapear without the support for it. I do understand how it can effect the content of the art and leave art open to censorship, but I think if there was a commitee that could regulate the goverments involvement that it could work.
i don't feel that there needs to be a seperation. i think that the very idea and purpose of art is to defy and break the boundries and structures placed upon a society. the seperation exists even without one's acknowledgement. i see what serrano is saying but at the same time i can sympathize with Boaz. if the seperation came i think that the money would eventually come from somewhere else, art will always exist even if a government tries to censor it or not suport it.
5 comments:
While I can see what Boaz is talking about when he speaks of a separation between of art and state, the parallel including the relationship between the church and state doesn't sound well based. One of the larger reasons why there is a separation between church and state is that the Church played a large roll in English politics, so religious persecution was often a backed by the state. Somehow, I don't see the federal government persecuting those with different artistic views anytime soon...
When it comes to art and governement, my inner liberatrian agrees with Boaz that any government hand in the arts is stifiling and likely to inhibit expression. I also agree that individuality is essentail to art and that individuality is not always able to be recognized when under governement supervision.
However (and this is a big however), we are at a time in our society when governement funding is essential for the production and proliferation of new art. I find myself to be a big supporter of politicians who support the arts. So while it is all well and good to say that the goverenment should stay away from art to allow for creativity and eliminate any possibility for a governement mandated agenda in art, money is always a good thing.
Compared to other countries, what our government gives to the arts is a joke.
And if there were a separation, it would be even more difficult to make a producing company financially self-sufficient while being able to produce works that the company wants to produce 100% of the time.
I can definetly see what Boaz is talking about, but I agree with the idea that much of the arts are funded by the govermnet and would disapear without the support for it. I do understand how it can effect the content of the art and leave art open to censorship, but I think if there was a commitee that could regulate the goverments involvement that it could work.
i don't feel that there needs to be a seperation. i think that the very idea and purpose of art is to defy and break the boundries and structures placed upon a society. the seperation exists even without one's acknowledgement. i see what serrano is saying but at the same time i can sympathize with Boaz. if the seperation came i think that the money would eventually come from somewhere else, art will always exist even if a government tries to censor it or not suport it.
Post a Comment