We could do both. We spend less than 200 million a year on the arts in the federal budget. Increasing that instead of cutting it every year might even bring back some of those "useless art courses" in K-12 that got axed. I shouldn't give more tax money to Raytheon than the cultural institutions of my country. Either cut the former for once or increase the latter
> Increasing that instead of cutting it every year might even bring back some of those "useless art courses" in K-12 that got axed.
I am all in favor of funding the arts in school, but I have to say every single art class I took in K-12 was absolutely useless. We learned neither art history, appreciation, or any technique of drawing or painting or anything of the sort, and none of my teachers (in an otherwise very good school district) honestly seemed like they would have been competent to teach drawing or painting or art history.
Basically my experience with art in school, as it was taught, was that it was an utter waste of time. I'd love to be able draw decently or have a knowledge of art history on par with say knowledge of European history.
Funding both is an interesting perspective. It is certainly practical. It is just that some people view the arts as impractical.
While that may be true from a purely economic stance, I am left to wonder how many people would want to live in a world truly devoid of the arts. I am not speaking of the stereotypical impression of the arts here. I am speaking of creative expression, whether it is linked to social discourse or not, arts here. Even though I am a bit of a fan of utilitarian and, arguably, industrial architecture, I am can also understand the human need for aesthetic and naturalistic environments.
