The list was meant to contain 'bad' and 'good' things, as examples of things that benefit 'a few'.

It is curious, but I have observed it (predict where someone will stand on the issue of universal health care by their feelings about the CBC and the National Gallery) to be true time after time, and I am not young. I'm sure there are people who support public health care and think we should ditch all cultural support, but I've yet to meet them. It seems connected to a 'government out of my life and my pocket at all costs' belief system, a political stance which I strongly oppose.

I have found that support for visual arts lags behind that for most other forms of cultural expression. People often have very strong opinions or reactions to specific works of art, and base their idea of 'value' on that reaction. IMO, their reactions are valid, and must contribute to the 'value' of the work, but there are other considerations as well, in terms of assessing 'value', such as the specific artist's other works, relationship to other art, historical and contemporary, and so on. There is a difference between private and public art, as well: "Guernica" is a famous, powerful, much admired painting, but who could live with it over the couch, eh?

I think I'm going to stay out of these sorts of discussions from now on, though. Too easy to be misinterpreted, and I'm here at Mudcat for a good time and to learn about music.

Good afternoon! (or eve. or morn., depending on where you are in the world. ;-))