There have been lots of good points made here. I, for one, am tired of artists being asked to produce work out of their own pocket, (or as it has been described, “to emanate from the people") although many of us do it, suckers that we are. <P>The concept of giving money to what is <I>good</I> vs. <I>fad</I> fails to take into account that often what history regards as <I>good</I> was seen as <B>crap</B> during its inception but the poverty stricken artist "emenated" it anyway. There is a long list of artists, Motzart, Van Gogh, etc., who only came into favour after their respective lifetimes. <P>I think some of us tend to forget how integral the arts are in our lives and how hard people work to produce art--and administrate it. Arts administrators work hard for very little, and why shouldn't we pay for that through our respective governments? I know it’s not an easy fit, (particularly in the U.S. where government seems hopelessly entwined with other agendas) and sometimes we don’t agree with the decisions that they make but since we hire “experts” in other areas of government, why not in respect to the arts? <P>I was shocked during the last Canadian election when someone I went to high school with, who's father is an international rock star (seriously), told the CBC that the government shouldn't give money to the arts, because <B>he</B> never asked them for any money and managed to start a recording career. It’s always easy as a “have” to say that the “have-nots” should do it on their own or just go beg from the local parish.<BR> <BR>In my fantasy world we would have a "No Arts Year" and no one would have access to any artistic product AT ALL. That would mean the museums would close, YOUR KIDS would not take dance classes, and neither would YOU. There would be nothing on the radio or television, except for maybe the news and forget going to the movies. And no recorded music or dvd rentals either. You would have to empty your houses of all of the art that you own, which, by the way, you purchased for a insignificant amount of its worth. Then artists would merge to become a powerful multi-national (probably headed by Virgin's Richard Branson) and only the rich and elite would have access to art, because the world would have wised up to the fact that the arts are worth something more than the average joe should be able to afford. Hey, what do you know, that's how the world was a couple of centuries ago!<P>Well, gotta go emenate.<P>P.S. Trina, did you point out to your husband that the current government actually reflects the will of "the electoral college".
<BR><p>[This message has been edited by Marie (edited January 23, 2001).]