Because they don't have any talent, except as criminals, and if they embraced the outlook you wish for they would not be in power because someone more competent would be.
I've noticed that attitude amongst a lot artist acquaintances I've met over the years. Most of them want someone else to pay for their medical, food, retirement and other living expenses while they concentrate on their shitty art that no buys. It they weren't grifters they'd also have to confront the fact that their talentless hacks would have to move on with their lives and be productive.
I used to have a few friends like that. They were always going on about how important the National Endowment of the Arts was so important. I would point out that there were actually good, talented artists who were financially successful. Shitty artists don't deserve my tax dollars.
Does art only have merit if it is financially successful? Robert Mapplethorpe was a wildly successful artist financially. I’m not saying I love the NEA, it’s probably not a thing I want the federal government to be a part of, and so long as we have a federal government with an NEA, I’d at least like more of the grant awards to be decided at a more local level. But we could liquidate the NEA tomorrow, shift the entire budget to the southern border wall, and it would only get 20 feet longer before funds had dried up.
It’s like if you were trying to lose weight and asked for a banana split, hold the sprinkles.
Some of the most iconic American Art in the 20th century was paid for by Roosevelt’s WPA, and wouldn’t exist otherwise. You can approve of the New Deal or not, but the artistic legacy of the WPA is now priceless.
Because they don't have any talent, except as criminals, and if they embraced the outlook you wish for they would not be in power because someone more competent would be.
I've noticed that attitude amongst a lot artist acquaintances I've met over the years. Most of them want someone else to pay for their medical, food, retirement and other living expenses while they concentrate on their shitty art that no buys. It they weren't grifters they'd also have to confront the fact that their talentless hacks would have to move on with their lives and be productive.
I used to have a few friends like that. They were always going on about how important the National Endowment of the Arts was so important. I would point out that there were actually good, talented artists who were financially successful. Shitty artists don't deserve my tax dollars.
Does art only have merit if it is financially successful? Robert Mapplethorpe was a wildly successful artist financially. I’m not saying I love the NEA, it’s probably not a thing I want the federal government to be a part of, and so long as we have a federal government with an NEA, I’d at least like more of the grant awards to be decided at a more local level. But we could liquidate the NEA tomorrow, shift the entire budget to the southern border wall, and it would only get 20 feet longer before funds had dried up.
It’s like if you were trying to lose weight and asked for a banana split, hold the sprinkles.
Some of the most iconic American Art in the 20th century was paid for by Roosevelt’s WPA, and wouldn’t exist otherwise. You can approve of the New Deal or not, but the artistic legacy of the WPA is now priceless.