> If all art is popularly funded, you'd only get pop. I'm going to go ahead and yell, "False!" on this. Music is almost entirely popularly funded (i.e.-no gove

> If all art is popularly funded, you'd only get pop. I'm going to go ahead and yell, "False!" on this. Music is almost entirely popularly funded (i.e.-no government grants). Pop is not the only music that exists. There are many niches and genres of music, for good reason--there's a lot of money out there. It's not an American election--more than one party can win. Your other points are moot. Research and art are two very different things. Art is an expression, research is the seeking of knowledge. That knowledge may or may not be valuable to us in the future (and may or may not be worth the cost), but we're willing to take those risks because the reward can be fantastic. Art has its importance, but scientific research has practical and valuable applications, and there lies all the difference. I cannot think of what art could possibly require a long-term and high-risk investment (long-term being on the order of a decade) that is currently not supported by the private market.