Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
Um, if people want to express themselves in a sub-commercial manor why can't they do this on their own. I don't like the idea of contributing money towards peoples hobbies. Heck, if I had my druthers I would write poetry, dance, paint, write songs, and make short films, all day long as a means of my own expression, but I'm far too busy trying to feed myself and advance other goals that are more important to the day to day functioning of North American society (Especailly in an economic Crisis). People can still be creative without the government defaco choosing who does and doesn't get funding for sub-commercial art.
|
If you were any good at any of those things, you could easily do both. I know lots of artists, musicians, and writers of both the professional and 'sub-commercial' variety, and few if any of them receive money from any level of government; government funding simply is not set up in such a way to provide money directly to artists: it goes primarily to museums, galleries, performance organizations, recording studios and production companies to help with their organizational infrastructure and operating costs. The people who are actually creating art either need to create are that is commercially viable, find another way to support themselves through regular jobs, or mooch off a rich relative or benefactor (not the government).
If you want to say that you don't think the government should fund or support record studios, museums, production companies and other similar organizations, go ahead and make that argument, but don't perpetuate the stereotype of artists getting checks from the government to sit at home all day and create non-commercial artwork, music, or literature, because it's absolutely false.