Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Well that's just a matter of determining what is valuable, and to be quite honest it seems that the market has done a pretty good job of that. Would supporting a Damien Hirst gallery not qualify because his pieces sell for millions?
I love art of all kinds, I frequent galleries and museums regularly, but I can't say that funding to some guy doing a piece where a bunch of IV's dangle in a dimly lit space (real thing I saw, and actually really cool) counts as "doing the most good" over funding an arena. Neither one is likely to bring back a direct fiscal return, so we're left with determining what has the better social impact, which is going to vary from person to person. Saying that one is definitively better than the other simply doesn't make any sense.
|
I would say, and this is only my opinion, that if you want public money supporting the arts it is allow more people to be artists instead of focusing money on those artists who are already profitable. Kind of like how I'd prefer public money be put into funding youth hockey instead of NHL hockey - build many public rinks instead of one NHL rink.