Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
it's not like people getting the grants burn the money you know
they spend it in the work and recirculate it in the economy. they buy groceries and pay rent.
some of these grants require you to do a public service and what not
it's like the government hires a "cultural worker" to do things
we have people like the poet laureate of the u.s. and others who do that who live off government salaries
same shit with people teaching poetry, art, and music in public universities-- they get paid with tax dollars. it's great to be able to be a poet or a painter and not have to be homeless and live in a shelter or wait for "charity". wellcharge sounds like those yahoos who like to cut arts education
sorry but the people voted to keep it alive-- art makes life better for all-- even for yahoos.
|
I agree with that to an extent. However, I think it's the same mentality that allows athletes to hit their ridiculous salaries. Some jobs just don't
need to be well-funded (a big issue with politicians and pastors). If a real artist is going to do art, they will just go into it knowing they'll need some other form of support.
At the same time, I'm not at all against funding artists. I just don't think it's
necessary or extremely beneficial for artist output. Unless of course we're talking structural art or something, in which the work itself requires more money than the artist can fund. But besides that.