Maggie's Farm

Karl,

You call to mind my late father-in-law who took some years to come to grips with the fact that his other son-in-law (i.e, not me) was a professional hornist, quite well known and regarded, with a major symphony orchestra. He would get a puzzled look on his face and say, "Yes, I understand that he's a very good hornist, but what does he do for a job - a living?" To him such things were hobbies, not professions.

On the matter of "subsidy" to art, I support various levels of government providing art museums. I support our public schools at all levels providing education in the arts, their history, and the potential acquisition of the very real skills involved in producing art.

The problem lies, as I see it, in defining "art". The government employee who uses the budget provided by taxpayers to do an "art exhibition" where items such as a crucifix immersed in urine meets the criteria for "art" should find himself quickly unemployed and, in future, unemployable for any position paid for with taxpayer funds.

I do not support directly paying for the creation of art by individuals not within the public education system unless the art is commissioned for a particular public purpose and space - memorials, sculptures for public buildings, etc. And, as above, if the public finds the "art" insulting, revolting, or just plain ugly, the government employee responsible for the commission should soon be looking for work outside of public service at taxpayer expense.

Naturally the devil is in the details. But a good start to sorting out such details would be firing a bunch of government employees who use our money to purchase crap.