Is Art "Art" if more than 67% don't get/appreciate/like it?

Many developed countries fund art and in the cases of large buildings force a % of that development to be set aside for a public art piece out the front.





1) Why should a commercial building be forced to put art out the front, but not a beach, or a cafe or any other thing.





2) If the art is so wildly conceptual as to be unappealing to more than 67% of a population (More than 1 standard deviation above norm), why should that art be subsidised





3) If an artist intends to make a commercial living from their art, shouldn't the artist survive on the saleability of their art on not on handouts?

Is Art "Art" if more than 67% don't get/appreciate/like it?
as long as the artist enjoys the work it is art no matter how much everybody else hates it. Althoug no one should be forced to put there art where they don't want it.
Reply:Are you a "young republican" by any chance? Art is not about popularity and/or money. It's about giving a glimpse of the "truth" to the morons who voted for bush, and other cretin types.





I can't believe only *67%* don't get it from my experience of the species. The species needs a huge consciousness upgrade for it and the planet to survive !!





Art is about reconnecting your shriveled soul back to/with "Source". Do you GET that? :))
Reply:Art is art even if no one likes it. It just isn't well liked art or popular art or generally accepted art. But of course it's still art.





1) I don't know how it is in other countries, but In the US, in every state that I've heard of, only state buildings (universities, etc.) are subject to the funding for art program. Commercial buildings never receive it. Also, the use of the funds can be declined, so the State buildings that use art are not forced, but elect to have the art. I think the only reason a cafe and/or a beach isn't forced to have art is because there isn't enough money to provide for absolutely every place. If I were the owner of a cafe or of a beach, I'd jump at the chance to have the government provide my place of business with some art. As a member of the public, I'd love it if every cafe had art and every beach had art, but I can't imagine the government providing the money to make that happen. The policy of granting state money (at least here in the US) was established by people who were elected democratically; the same representatives can also change the policy if they choose. I've never heard of anyone objecting to having the government pay for art in buildings before - I have heard of controversies surrounding which artist, which artwork gets chosen to receive the commission or sale, of course. It sounds like things are very different where you live.





2) In my state, in the US, anyone can submit a portfolio to the State Arts board. When a building is constructed, the State Arts board requests representation from the workers who are inhabiting the building and the community that will be using the building, and a decision is made by consultation among these representatives. Hard to get more democratic than that unless you put it to a whole community vote.





3) that's a good question, and if the process of government funding of arts is as democratic as it seems to be here, then the answer is that the sale of the artist's work is still the determining factor in the artist's sucess, even if the government is the buyer. That's the key - is the populace truly represented by the government or not? If the populace is genuinely represented by the government, then the government's purchase of artwork is no different than any other purchase of artwork. So that really raises another question - are policies THAT authoritarian where you are? Or is it possible they are more democratic than you realize and that people within the government or representatives of the communities involved are freely choosing art that you just happen not to appreciate?
Reply:yes art is a way for an artist to express themselves