[Leica] government funding of the arts

[Kyle Cassidy <KCassidy@asc.upenn.edu>]

Sam S. said:

>Let me add to the fray by making this comment: I don't care what >anybody
considers art to be. I have my own sense of what art is and do >Not insist
others adhere to it. But I do insist that I not be forced to 
>indulge in other people's fantasies through public funding. The 
>mechanism for arts funding in the United States is corrupt and absurdly 
>political. "Powerful" work like Cumshots need to find a patron to foot 
>the bill. Utopian dreamers ought not have the power to take money from 

i don't recall reading anywhere that there was a dime of public funds in
this particular project. but, you've gotten your wish anyway, the NEA is all
but dead, and they can't give grants to individual artists anymore anyway.

from a high of 172 million in 1992 (something like 60 cents per taxpayer,
which is peanuts) it's currently 115 million. i'm more concerned about
paying 87 billion more dollars to fight a war in iraq, which does provide
for good photo ops. for all intents and purposes, there is no government
funding of the arts in america.





>hard-working people to fester, uh rather, foster art for public 
>consumption. 

Some say that how a country supports the arts is the measure of its 
intelligence and sophistication but fail to understand that it is much 
more a case of national manipulation. A few rarefied queer ducks 
gleefully spending other people's money doing things heretofore illegal. 

Lunacy. 



Sam S 

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html