|
I don't know about government sponsoring the work of artists. It is a good idea on the face of it, but falls flat in the execution. Who decides what is art and what is crap? Since art is so subjective and intangible, it would be relatively easy to argue that anything and everything falls under the umbrella of art. Also I think there is a dichotomy of incompatible pursuits. Either you are good at art and dedicated to that as your life work, or you are good at applying for and getting government grants. I don't think there is a whole lot of cross-disciplinary practitioners there. Maybe I'm wrong.
So, while I support the idea of funding for the arts, I fail to see how it can be faithfully executed for the public good.
As for the bulk of funding going to film, I don't think that profit from sales qualifies as funding. Do you have data that suggests that filmmakers actually get more government based funding than other arts?
__________________
---
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein
---
|