#1
Posted 12 March 2013 - 06:20 AM
#2
Posted 12 March 2013 - 06:58 AM
When it has a clear benefit to the public, I think there should be some funding. Say pay people to paint murals on the sides of buildings to beautify the place, to create sculptures to liven the place up and so on.
Otherwise, I don't see any reason why they should promote art just for the sake of promoting art. I think if there was less money in art, the lesser artists would move on elsewhere and the better ones would be able to be self-sufficient.
Win-Win.
#3
Posted 12 March 2013 - 07:06 AM
I'm a believer in government funding stuff that works when it's government funded.
I live in Canada. Here we have quite a lot of government-funded art. It's generally crap.
Now if the government was only good at finding decent art, then I'd be for it. But they don't seem to have the knack.
Then again, going by the stuff hanging on bank managers' walls, we probably need to get the banks out of funding the arts too. B)