Now there are more and more Westerners coming to galleries to buy from the artists. It's very interesting that the funding cut actually opened the door to the artist and to the patron. This is just for the benefit of a political campaign. It was very self-centered and it has and will have a chilling effect on the museum's ability to raise money. It was a very selfish and self-centered act by a mayor who really should have stood up for free speech.
Power worries about the market sector imposing constraints on artistic activity.
The public sector is much more prone to do it for the simple reason that the political opportunities available to government officials are much more numerous. A panel, a group of professionals and specialists, should decide. Return to top C ongress has cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by nearly one-half since 1992. I think it is probably sending a specific message about some of the choices that the NEA has made. And, in its own way, that illustrates the inherent dangers of government support of the arts.