INDIANAPOLIS, March 14, 2012— The National Endowment for the Arts has a misleading slogan: “A great nation deserves great art.” Au contraire, mon ami: a great nation produces great art.
Great art does not happen on demand, to order, whenever someone throws a bucket of money at some “artist.” Great art is in the eye not of the bureaucrat, but of the patron.
What defines “great art” better than its advocates’ buying it, or spending their own money to have it seen? Only inferior work needs coerced money to sustain it, and only politically-connected artists are bestowed such taxpayer largesse. (“Good” or “bad” is not the criterion—nor is it possible for one bureaucrat or a roomful of bureaucrats, to ascertain “good art”versus“bad art)
Of course, subsidizing something that is inferior is enabling a lower talent to usurp the market for something that is greater. What public purpose is there in promoting mediocre art?
And from both economic and humanitarian perspectives, what purpose is there in keeping the inferior artist struggling along on welfare, when he could be making a great living as, say, a dentist?
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.