would have you believe that art world needs funding to survive.
True conservatives will tell you, correctly, that if art should
survive, it will. If nobody wants art enough to pay for it voluntarily,
then art will die a valid death.
me ask you, what would virtually any thinking historian say was
the most productive art period in history? It was the Renaissance
in the 1700s that produced the world’s greatest art, before or after.
The David statue, the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta’, you name it – it’s still the best.
made this art possible?
two groups commissioned the best art in history:
are the two groups that liberals and most artists continually vilify?
liberals truly wanted art to thrive, they would stop bashing the
rich and they would stop trying to remove the church from every
single walk of life. But liberals are not honest. They want art
to be another welfare program. They would have YOU pay “starving
artists” and support the institutes that cannot make it on the turnstile
ticket sales alone.
your tax dollars are not paying starving artists. And art institutes
are not art destitutes.
the following table from FORBES magazine, April 16, 2001, page 30:
Institute Leader Annual Salary
J. Paul Getty Museum, LA John Walsh $1,403,543
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY Phillipe de Montebello 1,134,762
Museum of Fine Arts, Houston Peter C. Marzio 547,181
Whitney Museum of American Art, NY Maxwell L. Anderson 507,790
National Gallery of Art, Washington Earl A. Powell, III 447,718
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Malcolm A. Rogers 439,022
Brooklyn Museum, NY Arnold Lehman 435,038
Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago James N. Wood 408,890
turns out that if welfare for art stops, that rich won’t be getting
learn two things from this table:
leaders of America’s major art institutes are some of the
wealthiest individuals in the country and are subsidized by
the American taxpayer.
art supporters are hypocritically chauvinistic and refuse
to put women in leadership roles.