December 30th, 2003

…way down. (also, am i the only one get­ting a really f’d up layout on that site?)
to me, this is a good and a bad thing. bad, obvi­ously, because the gov­ern­ment should invest some of our tax dol­lars in ‘culture’ and ‘beauty’. to see states like cal­i­for­nia down 90% is a bit disheartening.

on the other hand,, i do not believe, in a free market econ­omy, artists should depend on the gov­ern­ment to budget money to give to them on a whim, simply because the money is bud­geted to be spent. if artists don’t have the job skills to pro­duce work worthy of pur­chase, maybe they should find another way to make a living. simple as that.

i’m not talk­ing about money being spent on muse­ums. i’m not talk­ing about cut­ting money for art classes/supplies in public schools. i’m talk­ing about grants given to strug­gling artists that cannot afford to live. maybe now there will be less starv­ing artists sell­ing a half eaten taco on a cracked plate for a cool 250 grand because it’s ‘experimental’ or modern. do a quick search on google for ‘art grants’ and see how many links for sites that offer “free money” turn up. that’s the garbage we need cut out.

it doesn’t cost money to create art. paint, sculpt, write, what­ever … but do it in your spare time. get a job, slackers!

Wel­come! If you're new here, you may want to sub­scribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

4 Responses to “Funding for the Arts Is Down …”

1. Anonymous says:
   December 30th, 2003 at 3:07 pm

   all that art grant crap was cre­ated as part of the “new deal” which cre­ated a soci­ety depen­dant upon the gov­ern­ment for sur­vival. Its about damn time that we started ween­ing these babys off of the teat of the amer­i­can tax payer.
2. DOUBLE YOU TEE says:
   December 30th, 2003 at 3:09 pm

   did you just say “teat”?
3. Anonymous says:
   December 30th, 2003 at 3:15 pm

   yes indeedy
4. DOUBLE YOU TEE says:
   January 1st, 2004 at 10:59 pm

   weird.