LucyL said:All of the artists I have known, even the good ones who's best work was very commercially appealing, thought there should be a plethora of government funding and grants available to sustain the "arts" because it's just so important to keep "art" alive for the unappreciative masses.
Thinking it over, I think I might've gotten you a little wrong.
Actually, it seems you may feel pretty good about
the government's handling of the loutish artists.
You say all of the artists you've known
"thought" there should be a lot of government funding and grants for them.
So they all have that expectation or fantasy.
But, in reality, I think you imply,
there is no government funding for them.
It is just their imagination fueled by their gargantuan sense of entitlement.
From your point of view then,
I'm guessing you think the government
is doing a pretty good job of keeping money
out of the lazy artists' hands, right?
So your complaint is really directed at the artist, not the government.
Please correct me if I'm mistaking you.
In your view,
when you say "all" of the artists you've known
"thought there should be a plethora of government funding and grants available,"
what you seem to be saying is
that generally speaking
all artists are a bit (or a lot!) lazy,
are always looking for any handout they can get
(even though they do not deserve it),
and are arrogant--
utterly convinced that the world owes them a living.
They don't want to earn their living the old-fashioned way.
They wan't the taxpayers to hand it to them on a silver platter,
so they can go get stoned, then fall asleep,
then wake up to drip paint randomly onto canvas for about an hour,
then go email out more grant requests to the government.
Have I accurately represented your view of artists?