The NEA has two purposes; one Republicans like to talk about and one that they don't. One reason is to support artists and the other is to provide art to communities and places where access to the arts is limited.
Obviously the first one is the one that we like to talk about. Artists are seen in this country as useless pansies who accomplish nothing. Like beggers but more annoying. That's not an accurate depiction in my opinion, but that is the standard portrayal. But should supporting artists really be the main goal of the NEA?
Why not focus on providing art to those who don't have it?
Well, Rush Limbaugh, unsurprisingly, has an answer to that. "This reminds me of the argument over funding the Kansas City Symphony when I lived there. There were all these fund-raisers, and when people didn't open their wallets at them, the symphony demanded that the government force them to pony up the dough. I mean, nobody wanted the symphony, okay?" So if people don't want to pay for art it shouldn't exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment