Controversial Political Opinions

[David Horn]

(04-12-2022, 03:27 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: The arts usually don't need more funding. It's not because they aren't important, but because getting exposure to the arts is usually extremely inexpensive.
1) You can go on youtube and find free videos of every genre from rap, to classic rock, to baroque opera to Mongolian Throat Singing
2) The library is free
3) The human voice is free

Sure, maybe you need a bit for paint supplies, instruments and the occasional class trip, but by and large, just because something is important doesn't mean it has to be expensive. Seriously though, do you know anyone around today who doesn't have near constant exposure to like 10 different genres of music? The idea that we need exorbitant school district spending to facilitate this is absurd and wasteful.

Can I assume you have never trained in any of these fields?  Take ballet.  To be great, and that's what the target should be for serious dancers, lessons need to start in the preteen years, preferably before age 10.  Lessons aren't expensive in the early years, but promising candidates (i.e. all the youth who will be part of serious companies, and certainly all principals) need to begin serious training in their early teens -- usually with noted teachers, typically in dedicated facilities far from home (not everyone lives in a major city).  The same can be said for musicians, painters and sculptors, and writers, though writing can be studied more easily than the others.

So yes, you can obtain the product of their work for little to nothing.  That doesn't make it worth what you pay.