> A singer is unique in its persona for the live ecperience but can serve a large crowd in one sitting, saturating the market. Whereas a painting can only be vi

> A singer is unique in its persona for the live ecperience but can serve a large crowd in one sitting, saturating the market. Whereas a painting can only be viewed by a small crowd at any single time, given you want to see the original and not a display. A singer can only serve a large crowd if his voice be amplified by some mechanism, which is no different than electronically magnifying a painting. For the “authentic” experience, one would have to be closer, which means the serving would be diminished in capacity. Apart from that, the Dutch government arbitrarily gives out art subsidies for musical performances, invariably performances it arbitrarily deems “artistic” enough, which seems to come down to little more than “whatever style of music it associates with an older, more educated, wealthier audience.” I find it rather arbitrary that Wibi Soerjadi can cash in his art subsidies, but Anouk cannot. > Or to put it more bluntly, art is an archaic medium of entertainment that has little chance of survival against modern media and society wishes to keep it. And I would submit that the reasons that society wishes to keep it, is purely because it's associated with rich, educated adults.