Quote:
Originally Posted by PursuitOfHappinessParty
I, myself, don't think the government should subsidize any art. That's up to patrons of the arts, up to buyers of said art, and up to voluntary donations. I don't particularly want my tax money paying for bathroom tiled pillars. I choose UHC before I choose marble statues and the like.
|
I think the government should subsidize art at least through acquisitions. Art is valuable...that's why the Nazis ransacked everyone's.
The Smithsonian is a good thing, I think.
An impressive statue here and there never hurt anyone...with plaques bearing history...like we look at when we visit other countries. Sounds kinda dignified, if the art bore on American history and heroes. Particularly in state capitals. It's uplifting.
I can see arguing about the size of the budget, I can see arguing the composition of the expenses.
Far Left Fringe would argue that we must spend the same number of dollars on statuary in EVERY berg in America because EVERY human is entitled to the same opportunities to appreciate art and learn history.