>>I agree with you that artists and musicians have the toughest time making good living in this country (no matter if immigrants of natives). I am always amazed how many talented musicians I see playing on a street corner or artists selling their paintings near the Central park. But I still strongly believe that they are better off here - in the world of the market-driven economy - than in those countries where government "gives" them a minimum pay and "words" of recognition.
>
>Amen to all that. ( Thomas Wolf had a great line "they bow down before charlatans, and let their poets starve" ) Of course the problem with any kind of subsidized art is the problem of subsidizing poseurs Nothing is more disrespectful to the magic fire in humans that makes art that the drumbeat of the ego that makes "artists" without the inspiration. A priest with no calling but a love of robes and sinecures.
>
>The Art School Poser, the drifting soul who feels himself an artist by an affinity to life-style rather than something inside that needs to get out, still has a chance to sell new clothes to the Emperor in a market economy and there is certainly no law against self delusion on the part of creators or consumers, but asking others to subsidize pretension is just wrong.
>
>( I exclude from this grants to make art institutions viable - ballet, theater, museums, symphony orchestras - but am mostly opposed to individuals being subsidized in self-indulgence )

Interestingly if you read about some of the greats Leonardo, Michelanglo they where very much businessmen.

I'm very much against any form of art subsidy. especially to big central bodies like opera houses that are inaccessible to most people. Its a real case of the rich who sit on the bodies that allocate this sort of funding looking after themselves. If you want to see a fat Italian sing then pay the market price for it. If its too expensive then nobody goes and they can change their business model.