Art may be massively funded, but I generally evaluate art based on two criteria: - Skill (how much skill did it take to produce?) - Expressiveness (how well do

Art may be massively funded, but I generally evaluate art based on two criteria: - Skill (how much skill did it take to produce?) - Expressiveness (how well does it convey something or evoke emotions?) Neither of those criteria will necessarily make something popular, which is why I think a completely crowdsourced approach to funding art may not give us the best results. Not to say that the NEA is the best solution by any means, but I do think there is some value to funding art that "nobody wants" because that is the same art that has the potential to be priceless in the future. Additionally, art is very different from business. The quality/originality of the work and its popularity/commercial success are almost completely unrelated. You just have to look at the same industries you pointed out earlier. How many of the works of art those industries produced were made for the purpose of capitalizing on an opportunity to make money? How many were made to be truly expressive of ideas?