My co-worker pointed out an article in the Washington Post yesterday about the potential financial crisis for the Berlin opera companies. They are largely funded by the government and corporate sponsorship for the arts is virtually unheard of there. The point of the article was that the three companies may be facing cuts that affect the quality of their performances, the product, if you will. However, it was a more subtle point that caught my attention. One of the reasons they don't want to go to corporations or the public-at-large for funding is because they don't want to have to cater their programming to the public. Because so much of their money comes from the government, it is all about the advancement of the art and programming reflects the desires and abilities of the artists. They don't attempt to appease their audience. I think this is true in many European art centers (though I need to research this to be certain).
So, the question is, should art be for art's sake or for the people? I personally believe it should be both, but I also understand that a work of art often serves only one purpose or the other. I think it is the less common, but oh-so-valuable piece of art that feeds both the soul of the public and the soul of the artist.
Just some food for thought... there may be more on this to come...
No comments:
Post a Comment