<p>[The impact of art is hard to measure based on “consumption numbers.” Do you measure the impact of reading by the number of books sold?]</p>
<p>It is a proxy.</p>
<p>The number of books sold becomes a feedback loop mechanism and a price-discovery mechanism and ultimately the measure of worth to a society.</p>
<p>[I don’t think so. You’re telling me that centuries of Japanese visual art–woodblock prints, blue and white porcelain, magnificent scrolls, amazing ceramics–are irrelevant because we don’t have consumption numbers?]</p>
<p>To the average person, these are irrelevant.</p>
<p>[BTW, there are also plenty of studies documenting the economic impact of the arts on communities.]</p>
<p>I would guess that most of those two groups don’t see past their own interests. It is pretty clear where participants are willing to spend to support or enjoy their own interests.</p>
<p>It’s hard to quantify the value or worth of art, which is why it’s never valued in terms of its production costs. If “consumption numbers” or sales record is the measure of what is valuable to a society, or education, this country is rapidly going nowhere fast. What is “irrelevant” to an “average person” (not my words) is not indicative of anything but ignorance. Take something like Japanese woodcut prints for example, since someone mentioned them. Yes, the average person has given no thought to them but they are a direct precursor to anime and most Hollywood animation. All those animated movies that your kids have seen? Yep, they owe a debt to the artistic culture of another country. Not to mention all those games and gadgets coming out of Japan? Do you think their designers are ignorant of Japanese woodcut prints? My point is that the influence of the arts is everywhere, and just because one doesn’t actively seek it in museums doesn’t mean you’re not benefitting from the culture industry. Because the purveyors within that industry are certainly benefitting (and stealing ideas).</p>
<p>I don’t doubt that football is worth more to many people than arts. Why else the outlandish salaries for college coaches at schools like Alabama? The financial backing goes to football, not to arts, and not even as much to other areas of academic programming. Football is big business, male bonding or not. But that does not provide value to a culture, since what is left behind from football? A lot of head injuries and early Alzheimers. What is left behind from art? Evidence of an entire way a people lived, what they valued, etc. Some of it retains its value indefintely, like a Monet, or a Beethoven Sonata.</p>
<p>And shopping/consumerism is partially what got us into the current crisis we face. What was the advice after the terrorist attacks of 9/11? *Go shopping. * Consumerism is not a way of life, because what does it offer people? More stuff. Is it enriching or satisfying, either emotionally or spiritually? It might be, but only for people with an addictive shopping disorder.</p>
<p>The point is that there are so things that transcend consumerism, and their value cannot be decided by economic “worth”. As such, many people wouldn’t spend the money that I have invested in music lessons, for example. Perhaps they would have bought new furniture or jewelry. But I think what I purchased has infinitely more intrinsic value. I understand that not everyone can appreciate that value, but fortunately, there are others that do.</p>
<p>Why does Wall St like to recruit athletes? They can work in a team environment. It’s a useful skill in business and a hook into high-paying jobs. At some schools the football program makes a profit so it pays for the program and other stuff at the university.</p>
<p>I’m sure that there is a level of art and transcendence in football.</p>
<p>I don’t know what it is as I’m not particularly interested in it even though I realize its impact on society. I do know about art and transcendence in tennis, the history of the game, what made people great in various eras.</p>
<p>Actually, sports (and athletes) share some similar experiences with the arts. The idea of flow as a peak experience applies to both endeavors. </p>
<p>There’s no reason to get into a contest about which is more important, sports or art. I loved watching the Olympics last summer. I’m not a football fan, mostly because of the culture that surrounds it, but if someone explained the rules to me, I’m sure I could get caught up in it too. I recognize that there is societal value in teamwork, courage, risk taking, physical skill. The warlike mentality I can live without even though I personally like competitive games (strangely, no one else in my family does). Playing games is probably as much an intrinsic part of being human as drawing or making music.</p>
<p>I am not particularly interested in bashing sports either (although I don’t see the value of football, personally, and that does include the warlike mentality and crowd culture). I was more curious to discuss or at least point out the differences in funding and economics of foodtball/arts, and why, even in a recession/depression, people will talk about cutting art and music, closing the Rose Art Museum, but never touching the funding for football/sports.</p>
<p>I don’t think football is worth more than transportation, etc (as Mr. Payne noted in #66) either, and yet I will bet that no one will be cutting high school sports programs this dismal budget season, and yet art/music programs may/will get the ax. Many arts programs were already trimmed to the bone in the past, when deciding where to funnel precious money. </p>
<p>I quibble with the fact that one area is considered expendable and the other isn’t. And it isn’t only because football/sports programs are “teamwork” oriented, or that they are income generating (at a Big Ten or D1 school yes, but not at others and certainly not in high school), and thus more palatable for economic or consumer reasons. The “worth” of sports is considered higher than the "worth of arts, at least to the average person. That’s the mistake, as far as I am concerned.</p>