As an artist, I have painted on cardboard, drawn on toliet paper, and sculpted with aluminum foil. An artist doesn't need government. The government doesn't need an artist. If you are an artist that needs the government to support your life, you ain't an artist (Yep, Southern and PROUD of it). Too many "artist" have learned they can rely on the government for their livelihood, then on there own artistic abilities. A true artist relays on true inspiration, Creativity in materials, and a love of what they do. I have made 2 different people cry on 2 different occasions by giving gifts that cost me under $1 to produce. My art pieces look too much like what I am trying to draw/paint/sculpt that I will never (or would what to) receive government funding. It is MY ability, MY responsibility, and MY own funding that my creating comes from.

I agree. Like most things I remember, the free market fixes...oh wait. Sorry. I guess I do remember when the free market fixed things. If it won't sell,re-do it so it does, or find a new line of work. I have papered my elected officials walls with my letters NOT supporting ANY form of bailout...local or otherwise. Most Government "Grants" are hand-outs, too, IMHO, of course.
Thanks, Neal, for the continued stellar work.
Rick in Colorado Springs

I'm a graphic designer as well and seriously, the arts are best when funded privately.

The greatest periods of art have been funded not through the government, but through private donors, groups and religious institutions. All of the great Renaissance artists were in effect commission only artists. That was the system that everyone worked under back then... and it produced some of the best and longest lasting works of art in history.

Funding such things through the government will not enhance the arts one bit, but only allow art that would not have been valued during the period it was created in to grow.

One could offer the counter argument of Van Gogh who never really made a dime when he was a live off of his art, but after his death people did see the value of it and it lives on today because of the private market, not because of government intervention.

As a matter of principle, I agree with you on the subject of reducing government spending. It seems to me, however, that if there is going to be any gov't funding of the arts, the local level is exactly where it belongs. That's where the artist/taxpayer relationship can be the most enriching and fulfilling. Let's nuke all federal funding for the arts, and allow the local art community to prosper.