> To better analyze your objection, let us remove the taxpayer part first: Should art projects be funded (by whatever means) that the general public sees no val

> To better analyze your objection, let us remove the taxpayer part first: Should art projects be funded (by whatever means) that the general public sees no value in, i.e. this is how I parsed your "no one would pay for". The fact that taxes are collected under threat of force is the entire basis for the objection. Any "funded" work of art, absent the use of stolen money, is by definition an artwork that someone would pay for. The next time someone takes money from you at gunpoint, be sure to ask them whether they're doing so "to amortize the risk of finding the next Warhol or Banksy." One can hope, right?