Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
You write, <<After all, the NEA did fund "Piss Christ" and other
Careful, Mike. Your libertarianism becomes rather shakey when you attack the
NEA for the PARTICULAR art they support. I thought you were against all
government support for the arts. So whether it is Piss Christ, Robert
Mapplethorpe or Leonardo Da Vinci, it shouldn't make any difference to you.
The problem (of course, there are many problems, but lets work with one) with
letting the market place determine everything, is that for the theory to work
fairly and equitably (a premise I choose to make) it requires an assumption of
equality of opportunity. So, for you, it seems, the artist from Chicago's
North Shore and South Side, each have the same chance to succeed in the market
place, and there should be no government interference. But, of course, that
is far from the true, even with the (meager) support NEA. So, how can one be
pleased with the preponderance of whiteness and maleness and europeaness in
our cultural institutions and how can one argue that we can depend on the
market place to change that situation? In fact, the market place has no
interest in changing the situation since the market place has no interest in
anything other than the market! But artists do.