<"Do you think the government should support the arts?"

...Most emphatically NO!!

If an artist has such little popular appeal that they can't make a go of it, why should the state step in and support them? The people have spoken, and it's thumbs down.



It is of course no surprise that I agree with you. Artwork on a level with "Piss Christ" shouldn't get one nickel of tax money. For that matter, neither should Norman Rockwell. Subject matter has nothing to do with it.

...Shakespeare for example, created art because the theater-going public of the day loved his stuff, not because some Royal pen-pusher decided to fund his writing.

In the interests of truth, it should be pointed out that although Shakespeare's work was indeed popular with audiences, a lot of his stuff was also supported by patrons, including wealthy men and royalty. Some plays were commissioned by such. In Shakespeare's time, long before the Declaration of Independence, wealth was far more a matter of politics and inheritance than a matter of business success in a free market, and the line between the wealthy and the rulers was a lot thinner than it is now (and it ain't nearly thick enough now to suit me*). So, one could stretch a point to say that Shakespeare was, in fact, partially "government funded" or at least funded by money sucked out of the average man by royal and noble taxation. Sorry, but facts are facts.

*one solution:

"Congress Shall Make No Law Abridging Freedom of Production and Trade."

- an amendment to the Constitution proposed by Judge Narragansett in the final pages of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."