Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
As I mentioned before, I did go and see the painting, and it didn't impress me, change my life, make me have a massive 45 minute long orgasm. In fact as I sat there looking at it for 10 long painfull minutes trying to get a feeling about it, the only thing I could come up with was, we bought this for more then a million bucks?
I'd get more satsfaction out of staring at the naked body of an overweight one legged prostitute.
|
Great... now you have given some artist in Edmonton an idea...
Art funding should be one of those "good times" funding ideas. The government's purpose in life is not to buy and sell paintings, even paintings that make money nor is it to fund semi-literate rock bands on European vacations.
If the art was good, those that want to see it will pay to go see it. If the art is bad and it dies off - oh well. Those that bitch and whine about funding it can open up their pocket books to go make it happen.
And yes, I feel the exact same way about sports franchises. Under no circumstances should a government be bailing out an unsuccessful sports franchise. If people don't want to buy the tickets to support the team, then that's too bad for the team.
Sports funding for children to participate is not the same thing.