|
If the question is only directed to the National Endowment of Arts, then I would say that no funding is in order. I strongly believe that music and acting programs in schools should be given even more funding than they currently receive. Personally I would like to see governments role restricted to the roads and defense level. (No, this does not mean we shouldn't have diplomats, trade regulation, etc.) I believe that music and other art programs can and would survive without govt. help. We don't need "innovative" programs such as TL's recent exposure to the "f***" piece on a govt. subsidy. If a classic music group needs a govt. grant to say f***; then we should listen to heavy metal where they say it for free. (Unfortunately my sons band only had a 15 minute version of that song and it was all in English.)
I would also question whether "high art" does actually improve society. In this matter I am thinking about mueseums and opera. Personally I love and frequent mueseums but loathe opera. How, though, do these things help or uplift those teeming masses that cannot get access (due to distance) or lack of interest. What percentage of the population in Chicago attend the opera or go to its mueseums? What about the residents of Goober or Old Dimebox? In the past 10 years I've only been able to afford 1 holiday trip (3 days, 200 miles away, driving my own car). If the "arts" are only available to those in very large cities, and only used and "appreciated" by college educated individuals, is it right to pay for it with the tax dollars of the vast majority who do not want or do not have access to its benefits?
__________________
|