<span>As the fiscal year comes to a close, it’s well worth our time to take a close look at the way local governments are budgeting tax dollars. With high unemployment rates and rising rents and food costs across the nation, every one of those dollars matters immensely—and none of them should be wasted on funding for public art. I’ll be the first to admit that, even during difficult economic times, </span> <span>people need the arts to offer commentary, philosophy, and amusement. I am, in fact, a great supporter of the arts, and I regularly donate to arts organizations. The arts need money; they just don’t need government money. Cutting government funding for public art frees up tax dollars for indispensable government necessities that protect the safety and well-being of citizens, such as road building and maintenance, healthcare, housing, and education. Directing would-be arts funding into other programs is not only beneficial for those areas in need of more crucial government support; it is also good for artists and the art itself. Art is, by its very nature, expressive and controversial. The best art represents an individual point of view that is critical, imaginative, and eye-opening. This kind of ingenuity requires freedom and independence on the part of the artist. When the government provides funding for public art projects, the artist loses freedom. When using public funds, the artist is constrained by the need to represent the point of view of the government and to gratify the general public. There are countless stories of public art pieces being altered, censored, or even destroyed when the public exerted its authority over the work. Naturally, this situation results in a loss of personal freedom for the artist and an abundance of mediocre public artwork. The financial solution to producing high-quality, provocative art is private funding. If we allow the market to drive the production of art, artists and art-lovers will have a greater influence on the art being created and shown to the public. Already, private funding accounts for most art being created in America. In 2008, a record-breaking 858 million public dollars was spent on the arts by local governments in the United States. This sum pales in comparison to the 12.79 billion private dollars donated to the arts in the same year. And the high number of private dollars donated to artists is of course supplemented by the money that collectors spend on buying art in auction houses and galleries. Statistics show us that art can and does flourish without public funding. In fact, for centuries great masterpieces have been created without government money. Masters such as Shakespeare and Leonardo da Vinci had private funders, and their masterpieces continue to influence generations around the world. In light of this evidence, I offer a strong suggestion for the coming fiscal year: Let’s stop the move towards government-funded public art projects and encourage private donors to invest in the creation of high-quality, uncensored art. We don’t need public art pieces that incite controversy, upset some of the taxpayers who helped pay for them, and give the government the power of censorship. We need public funding to provide the necessities of health, safety, and education to our nation’s citizens. We also need a thriving private art market that allows artists financial independence and freedom of expression.</span>
It has the earmarks of a good convo because the sentences arent dragged along. its simple but gets the thought through. also its back and forth and not just one person doing most of the talking
