I was wondering when this would get political.
On 1/26/11 3:21 AM, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I really don't object to politics in art per sey, but I do have a
problem with using tax dollars to do it /*(left or right)*/. No one
should be taxed to advocate a position, especially one with which they
do not agree.
It's a paradox, really. If we itemize the costs of integral social
institutions, we find considerable cause to strike our own development
from the budget. My standard arguments for "I don't want my tax dollars
paying for [insert budget consideration here]." fall along the lines of:
1) "What ever happened to the social contract?" 2) "That's what voting
is for." [followed with more about the social contract] 3) "Why don't we
just all move to Indiana and live in the perfect society where everybody
agrees with everybody else?"
Once public money is introduced, it should either be balanced or left out.
Considering the uncertainty principle, there's no such thing as balance.
With your model, we can do one of two things: ban all public funding of
art (including that in schools and any other public institution), or
decide what people may or may not see/experience/discuss/etc.
"(left or right)"...I guess we only have two hands, so there it is.
