Are they willing? Are they making authetic choices to separate with their money and see/or purchase? Or is it just soothing an uncontrolled "entertain me" addiction fed by less and less fulfilling garbage coming out of the multi-national, pre-packaged culture pushing, welfare-for-billionaire corporations? In my view, people are TOO easily separated from their money. It also seems too often those who can least afford to be separated with it are the one's who easily give it up. By all means spend responsibly, buy what you want as well as what you need, but as a general rule, screw the "keep the economy rolling" crowd, screw the corporations pimping poor products you settle for to grasp a short term, meaningless, fix: DEMAND higher quality.
As long as they can sell you cheap, you'll get cheap--and cheaper. They're amoral and care not a wit about the cultural damage they'll inflict. They want to make money with "good enough", not turn out quality (Microsoft). We need to resist the consumerist urges more. Unfortunately, instead of getting the message of "higher quality" is desired--that costs money to produce, afterall--instead Hollywood, for example, makes up the difference with more advertising which makes their products even less appealing. They need to get the message but it takes a shift in the culture to reject the tripe because a few quiet individuals won't make a difference.
I laugh about this "public art" stuff if only because no one sees it. He's wanting federal money for something most of this country will never be exposed to delibrately or accidentally. I can't see how he can be serious (of course he'd not serious) about this meaning the government is defining culture. The popularity of Britney Spears and her snake is more culturally defining (pseudo-belly dancing, read as "sex", sells) than anything the gov't is doing via the NEA.
Now excuse me while I go waste $8 on "Lord of the Rings".