To: Dayuhan who wrote (263 ) 1/11/2001 6:21:22 AM From: Mao II Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486 Steven: I'd have to strongly disagree with you here on any number of points. There are great visual artists today, artists of depth and power who have benefited enormously from government grants supporting their work. In Philadelphia, where I live, just off the top of my head, painter Sidney Goodman and sculptor Rafael Ferrar and installation artist Pepon Osario, are magnificent artists at the top of their form and all have received key government support. You may not know their work, but that doesn't diminish its quality. Which leads to the second point. One reason we can speak of the quality of a Cezanne or a Matisse is because we have been able to see the work first hand in museums. That's largely because public money has gone to bolster the infrastructure supporting the arts in this country. In October, for example, the Philadelphia Museum of Art will present a major retrospective of Eakins' work. Public money wasn't available to support Eakins -- unfortunately -- but it is available to support our ability to see it and appreciate its greatness. The show is backed by the feds and it will travel across the country to other cities -- again backed by the feds. Because of the, in my view, unwarranted and cynical attacks on the NEA in the early 1990s, there is now virtually no money going to individual artists; the reduced endowment budget largely supports institutions, special projects and arts education. As far as the rest of your post is concerned, you neglect to mention that most of the great European art prior to the 18th century was subsidized by the Catholic church. And most artists of any century attached themselves to patrons who provided subsidies and dictated subject matter. M2