3 ms·

The art created by the rich isn't exclusively for the rich. They create art galleries and museums, as well as parks and festivals and sports and science centers

The art created by the rich isn't exclusively for the rich. They create art galleries and museums, as well as parks and festivals and sports and science centers and Keck telescopes and universities and other great things. You could say the public could do those, but now you have to deal with creation by a public committee, which may water down more cutting edge ideas due to the effects of populism. A billionaire can just make it happen, regardless of what the public thinks. They aren't responsible to the public in their art. Can you imagine trying to gather public funds for a new university in the age of Trump & Sanders. LOL it's not happening.

AstralStorm 8y ago
Why is it impossible? We do that all the time in countries that are not USA. Sometimes it is even successful. This all depends on how budget is allocated. The main drawback is currently that people do not vote directly on budget allocation and representatives have vested interests more often than not. (Except perhaps in Switzerland.) We could change it, but transitioning such a system would be hard and there's always excuses of "strategy" involved. As to art itself.. Governments also sponsor some forms of art. (Sometimes this gets corrupted or politicised.) Heck, there are private foundations too which do not have a single or small number of rich patrons.