[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]A good product? Sounds more like a popularity contest. Justin Bieber would obviously beat out Mozart any day of the week in popularity, but who exactly is the genius here? Not really, Mozart's works have certainly generated far more wealth than any Justin Bieber products. It's not my fault that you're ignorant of philharmonic performances that cost hundred of dollars to see that sell out consistently. And that's to say nothing of other ways in which Mozart is monetized. Either way, if a product is popular and sells, a la Justin Bieber, who are you to say that this shouldn't be the case? You're not-so-subtly advancing this elitist position where you think superior bureaucrats should decide for us where our money goes with respect to the arts, because ordinary folks just aren't smart enough to support the right stuff - we need super-duper-smart people like you staffing these arts endowment projects which fund unpopular (but higher-quality) with our tax dollars that regular folks like myself just aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate. Please sir, guide me. My, the sarcasm is strong with this one. Surely you have some links to provide, no? When you have folks like Justin Bieber singing the same lyrics over and over again in a four minute song as opposed to Mozart with his compositional genius at work, then yea, I begin to wonder. Where do you think expressions like "average joe" and "dumbing down" came from? Enlighten me. Regardless of all this, why should something die just because it isn't popular with the masses but has had clearly more thought, effort, and genius put into it? Since you are evidently so clued up, I beg of you, enlighten me![QUOTE="kraychik"] The arts don't need "funding" from the government. The arts need to be appealing enough to a sufficient amount of people in order to be sustainable. If you can't get a voluntary audience and require government funds to stay afloat, you probably don't have a good product.kraychik
Log in to comment