Art and Government money. Was NPR.

[Rob Switzer <rswitzer@721.com>]

One of the great hopes I had for emerging technology has largely been 
realized.  Artists of all kinds have options now to create and show work 
that were available only under the auspices of large institutions only a 
short time ago.

Even in traditionally expensive forms like dance and theater, innovators 
are finding ways to bring their work to life without the support of 
traditional institutions and other sources of 'funding'.

When the only alternative to creating art in the marketplace of mass 
popular entertainment was government financing of art, then the case for 
this financing was much stronger.  When the only alternative to mass 
commercial radio was NPR, the case for NPR was much stronger.

Musicians and now film-makers have the option of creating work and 
distributing it directly using the internet and digital technology, as 
well 
as a growing network of interest communities and small, sympathetic venues 
world-wide.

It's hard to speak critically of government involvement in the arts, 
because what you say is taken as being anti-art, rather than 
anti-government.

Earlier in this thread, someone pointed out that mass taste will always 
suck.  This is probably true.  But sadly, in many cases, I think same 
could 
be said of government taste.

At best, I think that government arts funding supports an entrenched 
status-quo.  At worst, I think that the patron ( person/institution paying 
the tab) often sets the ideological and cultural agenda, either overtly or 
implicitly.  This is probably not a good thing.

Communities of artists/audience who alternately fill both roles and work 
on 
a scale that allows them to contribute to and support each other is a much 
better thing than either marketplace driven or state-supported art.   Just 
my opinion.

rob switzer