The libs that are hollering could form a tax-free charity to get voluntary contributions for “the arts”...
Don't be absurd.
That's what overburdened taxpayers in a debt-laden state are for...
They already do that.
The majority of the money goes to the already well-endowed subscription institutions such as the museums, symphonies, opera, dance companies. Only one or two small grants in the $5k range go to individuals in each arts category. Most of these artists could self-fund their projects with a part-time, minimum wage job or a summer of fairly successful art fairs.
The Peer Review Committee is normally composed of the wives of politicians and wealthy donors who are active in fundraising for the institutional arts or who run galleries. Rarely is there a working artist on the committee and even more rarely is it an artist who actually runs a profitable, tax-paying art-related business.
Percent for Art simply inflates the cost of any new public building. Even then, in the past when I have known recipients (mostly blacksmiths and sculptors), the grants, while nominally large, barely cover the working costs of the installation and simply keeps the studio alive for a year or two. The grants do provide a resume boost to the artist and often will allow them to get an edge in bidding for private commissions, mostly through the networking via awards dinners and other institutional arts events. Prestigious gallery shows can be another result.
Placing the Arts Board under Tourism is also going to be a bitter pill for the Arts Board staffers to swallow. I haven’t kept up with the funds directly under Board control, but, in the past, it allowed them to have influence in regional arts organizations. They spend a fair amount of time and money traveling to outstate arts events/organizations. A lot of this is actually stealth political vetting prior to giving small grants to various events and organizers.
It is surprising to me to see that the NEA grants to the state are much lower than they were 25 years ago.