Does anyone really consider the NEA a significant source of funding? The vast majority of "artists" produce things that people happily pay money for, and the n

Does anyone really consider the NEA a significant source of funding? The vast majority of "artists" produce things that people happily pay money for, and the notion of subsidy is unnecessary. The idea that what the NEA funds is "real art" and the associated disdain for commercially viable art is in my opinion fairly perverse.