Quote:
Originally Posted by jwl868
A contrary opinion (and I think this is the first time that I’ve ever found myself disagreeing with Van).
The thought of a cabinet-level agency for the arts makes me shudder. These agencies have trouble with hard science (EPA, DOI), so I have my doubts at how well something as subjective as “art” could function. (There’s also the issue with the acronym – DOA.)
And executive-level agencies change depending on which way the wind is blowing from the White House. What would such an agency be like under the Bush administration?
Finally, my opinion on what happens when the federal government sponsors art can be summed up in two words: Tilted Arc.
Joe
|
Joe, I agree that sometimes Regan was partially right when he said; " The eight most frightening words were: I'm with the government, I'm here to help....."
I can understand the possible issues with having a executive level agency in charge of the Arts, However, I feel the lack of a national arts agenda is hurting all of us a lot more than it's helping. Beauracracy is a *****, but it's a ***** we know.
Besides all that I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it's stupid..........
