In a budget, how important is art versus music versus athletics versus computer programming? At the end of the day, some of those trade-offs will be made politically.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It costs a great deal of money to do a musical, and the more money involved, the more big business influences the artform.
I would passionately make the case that the harder the times, the more we need things that aren't just about keeping our job and making a buck - important though those things are. Arts programming isn't some sort of add-on or ornamental luxury.
Art is often valuable precisely because it isn't a sensible way to make money.
Music shouldn't be based around money or politics. Music should be a bunch of people that really do great songs together doing them together for the pursuit of having a good time.
Money is something that can be measured; art is not. It's all subjective.
A lot of artists are much more concerned about how their work is used and how it's disseminated. That, to artists, is as important as the money, for some people.
People would rather have art or gold instead of paper money.
Whenever education budgets get tightened, art programs are the first to get cut. Like the enduring popularity of reality TV, this never ceases to amaze me.
The art world is a very prissy little thing over in the corner, while the major cultural forces are being determined by techno science.
There is hardly any money interest in art, and music will be there when money is gone.