Raptor wrote:
Philistine here and proud of it.
People can study and create all the art the wan't but it better be able to stand on it's own financially without subtitles and grants at John Q. Taxpayer's expense.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Were it not for the Princes who were the patrons of artists like DaVinci and others, which was public funding, there would have been no Renaissance.
And humanity would not have survived past the late medieval period without the Renaissance?
Kraichgauer wrote:
If we subsidize business grants and the military, why not the arts?
I'd be stingy for the same reason about subsidizing business but of the two I'd rather see it go to business.
The military is fully funded by the government, not subsidized.
Kraichgauer wrote:
Admittedly though, not all art is financed by the government, as plenty is created by starving artists who finally get a break in the free market.
If your art is good enough then it'll sell. If it's totally awesome it'll $ell very well and will not need grants or subsidies. If it's not selling then there is something off that is making it unappealing to perspective buyers.
If any product can't stand on its own then something is wrong that throwing tax dollars at it won't fix.
Remember, I am not only a self-proclaimed philistine but (in your words) also a bully, a troll, and a neckbeard so it won't get much better than this.
Skippy McGee, otherwise known as Raptor
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson