graureiter wrote:
thedens wrote:
Brian Rad wrote:
No more more for artsy fartsy stuff. Gummint's broke.Tapped out. Insolvent. No more money. Nada. Zip.Zero.

Snip.
An artist designed your hat. And the house you live in. And the church you work in.  And the cars and trucks you drive.  And the tv shows you watch, and the advertisements for products you use, and your blankets, and your curtains, and every page of every magazine you read (including the gun magazines) and the covers and layouts of your books, and your furniture, and your clothes, and the textbooks students study, and the medical graphics and videos that teach doctors, and all of those stuffed animals you collect.  And they make money doing it, so that they don't have to mooch off of the government.  And yes, a very, very, very tiny minority of artists also come up with ways to offend people with their art.  Those don't usually make a good living, though.
  
But those are usually the ones wanting hand-outs.


If a couple of art students out of tens of thousands want to waste their education and play the system after art school, do we take away the entire system that served them, even though the vast majority of art students will go on to become respectable professional artists who serve a valuable purpose in the corporate world?  The problem isn't that art in schools doesn't serve a purpose, its that the few that take advantage of the system get a lot more press than the teams of graphic artists drawing paychecks to render detailed illustrations of surgical procedures for medical textbooks.



roro wrote:

LET IT GO, LET IT GOOOO, be one with the wind and sky or whatever the fuck