I think one needs liberty to produce art, therefore one needs libertarians who think they are leftists to make art, in order to have art shows. Come on Jason, You, Steve and I typically protect everybody- including your right to criticize our wackier ideas- but libertarianism invites everybody to the table to talk about these issues. It typitcally does not bludegon them for bringing the issue up. Read Frida Kahlo….read Louis Simpson, read Hemmingway…of course this work and modern works of art need a radical kind of free creativity to work, and they are going to do it whether there is or is not an NEA. But the NEA does help introduce us to artists. So balaance it out. I would personally like to see alot more art in public places.

Also, the dollars passing through the NEA are so few that they are invisible within the context of the national budget.

It is like saying you are going to balance your household budget by cutting down on nutmeg purchases.

Only certain people; relatively few.

we could survive without the NEA.

Sure, when we get to survivalist mode – but we clearly aren’t there yet.

And if it doesn’t make sense in your personal budget

Clever argument, but I support lots of government expenditures that don’t make sense for my personal budget.

If you have more money going out than you have coming in, does it really make sense for you to buy a painting for the living room wall? And if it doesn’t make sense in your personal budget, why should spending money for luxury items make sense for the government?

I guess they’ll pass their taste in music down to the next generation of Lords and Ladies and so the opera will slouch ever forward…much to my chagrin.

It’s more like”formerly popular music that has become foundational to western musical culture.” And the fact that there are still many practitioners (performing and composing) means it is not dead. It just isn’t as popular as you seem to demand, Jason.

But popularity does not have any relation to cultural longevity or even significance, and certainly there was plenty of music penned in Verdi’s day (or go back to Monteverdi — whose work is still being performed) that no longer sees the light of day. As I noted on the other thread, classical music and opera, have a long history of being paid for by royalty and wealthy merchant class. These people forming this fund are doing a thing that has a very long history.

All of those organizations out measuring the health of various metro areas, “The Best Places to Live” and so on do take into account the cultural life of that area. A vibrant arts community says alot about its residents, its ability to support these institutions, as well as the supporting industries.

What I don’t get, is how you can translate the fact that these artforms are of no interest to you into an argument against support of those artforms by people who have the means and the interest to do so?

Now there is a truth few know. Any chance you could teach it to Al Mascitti? If you tell him the predictable consequence of some action (that he likes, of course), his knee twitches and out comes the “You are committing the slippery slope fallacy.”

Here’s the scoop on it folks:

“If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.”

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

But one simply cannot say that just ANY argument of this type is fallacious. The devil is in the details:

“This type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious, but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and Z, and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious.”

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
_______________
Now in defense of Jason. Jason would have a valid argument if he simply stated that Delaware revenues are such that supporting all high art forms are too expensive and the ones that should be supported are the ones that are the most popular. BUT the federal government through the NEA is better suited to support the arts programs in the states that the states cannot.

I’ll say good night, Gracie. “Good night, Gracie.”

Instead of saying “classical music” say “formerly popular music” it would be much more honest.

Opera had immediate approval from the masses when verdi was putting on his shows over 100 years ago.

The premier performance, by the Ballets Russes, of Igor Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring caused a riot in Paris in 1913.

You go ahead and like classical music – but spare me the bullshit. You want to use state funds to prop up a dead art form. Fine. It is better than invading Iraq I guess.

And I think I’m in the huge majority on that.

Your lack of musical appreciation is not (thank God) a problem for the rest of us.