Public art ... valid or a waste of taxpayer's money?

[ka1axy]

I vote whole heartedly for public art.
I don't always understand or like the individual pieces, but as a concept, I'm all for it. Art softens and humanizes the harsh urban landscape. It's kind of like greenspace...makes the urban environment easier to take, and provides a burst of pleasure in the midst of all that concrete.

Interesting that the previous poster mentions lottery profits going to support public art in Germany. The same is true here in Massachusetts, and commonly done, I believe in most of the USA.


And I'm an engineer (we aren't supposed to notice that stuff)!

 

[semilog]

Publically owned football, basketball and baseball stadiums are a waste of taxpayers money for these art forms.

Publically *owned* stadiums are bad enough. Privately owned, publically subsidized stadiums are vastly worse. They make public spending on the arts look like a really good deal.

 

[bigeye]

Defense spending and state art go together. A good admiral or general makes a great subject for bronze in the park.

.

 

[semilog]

I'd rather the government not finance ANY arts organizations. It just corrupts them, and you get a passle of highly trained grant writers constantly submitting proposals for grants money that produces utterly lousy art.

Argument by assertion. Diego Rivera, Walker Evans, and Dorothea Lange didn't seem to have much of a problem doing it.