Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/01[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 07:40 AM 11/1/97 +0100, Alf Bruell wrote: >Your argument, that art should survive by itself (Roger) and not by stealing >money (Marc) is pretty well said, but shortsighted. Because you define arts >by $$. > >Hence, no Mozart, no van Gogh, no ... Oh, no! Your references prove my point. Neither Mozart nor van Gogh ever had one pfennig of government support. Mozart's way was paid by wealthy patrons (some of whom were on the government take, of course), and van Gogh died a rather impoverished chap. It was one of the embittering points of Mozart's final years that he was unable to obtain a lucrative government post. Mozart and van Gogh were successful WITHOUT "government support of the arts" and I will go further to say that good art will always succeed, bad art will always fail. Now, there's an absolute you can chomp on for a while, guys! Definitions of art vary, Alf. It would be wrong for me to steal your money and to use it to pay for something which you find silly, tasteless or offensive. It is equally wrong for you to theft me of my goods and possessions to do likewise. Art clearly can support itself in the public marketplace, and that is where it should seek its funding, not from my wallet, thank you! Marc email@example.com FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!