Mark, just one more:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/01/republican-study-group-proposes-cutting-arts-funds.html
On 1/26/11 4:50 PM, Trevor Cunningham wrote:
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.
