Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
the more money a society has, the more artists, philosophers, writers, and thinkers it's able to afford. the renaissance exploded in a handful of italian city states for a reason-- they were fucking loaded. same thing with athens. the enlightenment was propelled by the rise of capitalism that was fueled by gold and silver from the americas, as well as the slave trade. wherever you find intelligence , there is money backing it up.
|
I just quoted this paragraph but your post as a whole raised some really important issues that I think most reaonable people would find really hard to argue against.
I remember a while back someone - I think it was you - linking an article from (I think) the New Yorker, about the fate of the arts in the recession. It seemed to be suggesting that the arts will have to rethink its reliance on the very corporate funding that has traditionally supported it.
This would obviously require the arts to undergo a huge internal re-think as to what they're for and how they can function in that role. While I obviously find that task daunting, I also think it's now absolutely necessary and might ultimately prove quite positive (a point T&B made in an earlier post, which I agree with). Not only are the arts clearly unable to function in the way they've become accustomed for so long, there's a good argument to say that's probably no bad thing.