Why is it that almost every form of local entrepenurial enterprise other than "artistic expression" gets by predominately without state and local taxpayer financing.
Is it because "artists" in general need that support?, or could not make a living without that support?
No. It is because the taxpayer subsidized artists could not make a living without either taxpayer support or changing what they do as an "artist". Taxpayer subsidies for "art" are specifically drawn to prop up art that neither the public in general nor commercial interests would otherwise support on their own.
The artistic community and their political sychophants make the false argument that "art" is good simply for the sake of art and that the failure of public taxpayers to subsidize artists represents a direct attempt to stifle freedom of expression and a failure to "support" "art".
Both of these arguments are lies. As individuals and as corporations we support "art" all the time, with our checkbooks and our personal choices of what "art" we like. We are not required to support your art just because you are an artist and want to produce the art that you chose to produce.
For instance, take Lincoln Center in New York City. A place that was constructed with and recieves financial assistance from the taxpayers - as needed to "promote" "art"; particularly opera, ballet and orchestral concerts. Yet, in spite of all the taxpayer support what perecentage of the local population in the city can afford a nite out at Linclon Center - the construction guys, married with three kids in Queens, the hotel service workers, the dishwashers and waiters, the taxicab drivers, the busdrivers, starting cops and firemen, starting teachers, nurses, daycare workers, and many thousands of others??? Not likely at $65 to $100 dollars a ticket. So who goes to Lincoln Center mostly? Mostly the upper class and upper middle class liberals that claimed that "preserving a place for" their favorite "art" was important to "society"; while most of their "society" cannot afford to "enjoy" what they claimed to have "preserved".
Public funding and financing of all "art" is a sham.
Yes, public buildings should have art as part of the environment and decor of public buildings, but that art should be chosen with no intent whatsoever to "promote" art or to promote or help any artist. It should be chosen by committees of non-artists who are tasked with improving the ascetic environment of public space - not advancing "art" or improving "art" or promoting "art" and certainly while also trying NOT to make any political statement with its artistic choices. The mission is simply to improve the look of public space - end, fini, total and no other objective. If you have even just one "artist" on the commitee or influencing the committee then you will have already conceeded to the artistic prejudices and politics of that artist.