Liberals 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.
Every name of every Philharmonic in the country begins with a city name. Have you thought about this? You know why, right?
The city’s taxpayers pay for it. The majority pays for a tiny group of people’s entertainment. Don’t you wish the city would subsidize your entertainment expenses?
If every Philharmonic were privatized tomorrow, and every Philharmonic went out of business the next day due to lack of interest, that would be just fine. And I like orchestras! But if the market is not there, the resources should not be given.
It’s like the lying Public Broadcasting System that asks, “If PBS doesn’t do it, who will?” The answer is, “Maybe nobody. And that is great. That is far better than you stealing money from people.”
Art for Money’s Sake
Let 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.
Who made this art possible?
These two groups commissioned the best art in history:
- Wealthy individuals
Who are the two groups that liberals and most artists continually vilify?
- Wealthy individuals
If 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 yet another welfare program. They would have you pay “starving artists” and support the institutes that cannot make it on the turnstile ticket sales alone.
But your tax dollars are not paying starving artists. And art institutes are not art destitutes.
Consider the following table from FORBES magazine, April 16, 2001, page 30:
Art Institute Leaders and their Annual Salaries
- 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
It turns out that if welfare for art stops, that rich won’t be getting richer.
We learn two things from this table:
- The leaders of America’s major art institutes are some of the wealthiest individuals in the country and are subsidized by the American taxpayer.
- Liberal art supporters are hypocritically chauvinistic and refuse to put women in leadership roles.