Quote:
Originally Posted by cheapseats
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.
|
True, but where do you draw the line and who decides? What's truly art and what's bathroom tiles glued to a pillar? Why can't those who are 'patrons' of the art take care of the finances. I believe the Smithsonian is patron funded as well as admit fees.
Why can't I have UHC while the city spends a million bucks on some gaudy metal thingamajig?
__________________
Its like a finger pointing at the moon.
Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all that heavenly glory. - Bruce Lee in 'Enter The Dragon'
