i am really disgusted by the negativity toward the arts in this thread. i was going to stay out of this one, but some of the recent comments alluding to violence are just sickening.
if you don't like opera, don't go to the opera.
if you don't like the 'prostitots,' don't watch nick jr.
if you don't like public art, get appointed to your local arts commission and do something about it.
i was the co-chair of our arts commission for a year and the budget we got from your precious tax dollars was less than the cost of a used Saturn. we begged and borrowed to accomplish any little project and none of them pleased everyone. there is no piece of art in the world that everyone agrees on. and just because you may not like or understand someone else's art does not make it any less important than what you happen to favor.
my .02
bob
Dear Bob,
You may be missing the point.
How many operas did your regional arts commission put on?
I'll bet it was none, because they are too expensive: disproportionately expensive, compared with any other art form. They are a form of conspicuous consumption. To turn your argument around, if you do like opera,
and can afford $100 a ticket don't ask someone to subsidize you.
My argument is that opera is not 'public art' because the price excludes too many of the public.
Anything else, as I said in my first post, is a legitimate form of art to fund. I'll now modify that:
except perhaps very expensive paintings by widely lauded and now dead artists: I'd rather see £5,000,000 spent on 100 contemporary artists' work, direct from the artist or gallery, at £50,000 a throw, than on one Van Gogh or Old Master 'trophy' painting. (And yes, I know about prices: I just chose those numbers to make the sums easy.)
Likewise, I'd rather see 100 organizations like yours receive meaningful grants than one opera house in one city swallow the same amount of money.
Cheers,
Roger
