"Your proposal reflects an unfortunately common misconception that if art can't be supported by ticket sales then it must not be successful or worthwhile."
That's not a misconception, that's economics. If it can't be supported by private funds, then it's NOT worthwhile. That means that people don't believe it's worth what it cost to produce, or have no interest in the product. It's simple. If your fringe art group can't get people in the door, they should either find a way to cut costs, or produce a different product, not take money from my pocket by force. Your argument of "no public funding means no art" is ludicrous. Somehow, someway every civilization on Earth has managed to produce art for centuries without government funding. I and several friends started our own small theater in Fayetteville several years ago. I know this will flabbergast you, but we ran a successful business for nearly six years without one dime of public funding. I've been involved in music and theatre my entire life. The arts are a very important part of my life, but I don't need to tax someone else to for it.
How about this for a coherent arts policy? Artists have to support themselves by creating product that people are willing to pay for, just like every other business. If you can't do that, perhaps you should find another line of work.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation