Do liberals really support the arts more? (1 Viewer)

[George_Washington]

I've often heard people say that liberals and Democrats support the arts more.

However, I don't think this is true at all. Sure, Democrats are more for the National Endowment for the Arts but I don't think this is indicative of the true nature of liberals and conservatives.

I think conservatives are actually the more artistic group. It seems like conservatives definitely support the fashion and fitness industries more. Really far left Liberals, especially communists, don't seem to be as into fitness and fashion. Alot of them are so overly analytical, bookish, boring, and dry that they have no flare for anything other than computing math equations. I am not talking about all liberals by any means or anyone personally who's on this forum. I just mean the real extreme ones that I've met throughout my lifetime. They seem so emotionless, I don't think they could even begin to do something artistic. Plus, I've seen many liberal leaning people on this forum say that they think fashion is pointless and whatnot.

I realize it's true that there have been many successful liberal and gay artists in the past. However, I bet most of them weren't actually as liberal as people would think.

I myself am fairly conservative but I have always been more artistically inclined and less proficient at mathematics and such.

It seems like to me, liberals tend to be the more left brained group while conservatives tend to be more right brained. I have not actually pursued stastical data on this but I would also say that artistic people tend to be more religious than atheistic people.

But then again, I do realize that all people are individuals. I don't mean to stereotype anyone, I'm just kind of throwing out ideas.

I was wondering what you all thought about this subject matter. Your thoughts are appreciated.

 

[Kandahar]

I think liberals generally support free speech in the arts more than conservatives do, and are more generous with other people's money.

Also I'm not sure I agree with you that conservatives care more about fashion than liberals. In my experience, it's exactly the opposite. Maybe it varies depending where in the country you are.

 

[Logos]

I live in Albuquerque and it has a lot of artist. I know personally a few artist and everyone of them is a dem. I grew up in a town where my dad was the head of the republicans and would send me out hanging flyers on door since I was able to walk. in that neighborhood I never met one artist. That’s juts what I have seen not saying your wrong. although I fish and that’s my art my dad had his garden and so on.

Overall I think artist tend to be more Anti authority regardless of the party.

 

[mixedmedia]

What does fashion and fitness have to do with art?

Ask yourself: actors, comedians, directors, screenwriters, film producers, playwrights, singers, songwriters, musicians, music producers, painters, sculptors, artisans, illustrators, comic book artists & writers, novelists, etc., etc......do you really suppose most of these people tend to be conservative?

Even though you say you're trying not to stereotype, and I trust you on that, I'm still a little insulted. Not only at your use of fashion and fitness to define "art." But also at your suggestion that conservatives support "art" because they are more likely to spend money on fitness and fashion and that somehow makes liberals not as creative. How long did you think this theory through before you posted it?

 

[Engimo]

If you think that science and mathematics are dry and boring, you've obviously never delved into it to any depth. Mathematics is all about elegance and beauty, and a damned lot of creativity. When you're dealing with genuine, high-level math, there is very little computation or number-crunching going on. Trying to create a mathematical proof requires massive amounts of reasoning ability and creativity, and it should not be belittled.

If you don't believe me, look up something like Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. It is simple, elegant, and brilliant.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Maybe it's because theres money in fashion. . .

 

[George_Washington]

What does fashion and fitness have to do with art?

Well, fashion is definitely a form of the arts and fitness goes hand in hand with fashion, since the vast majority of designer clothes are made to fit people who are in shape.

Ask yourself: actors, comedians, directors, screenwriters, film producers, playwrights, singers, songwriters, musicians, music producers, painters, sculptors, artisans, illustrators, comic book artists & writers, novelists, etc., etc......do you really suppose most of these people tend to be conservative?

Yes! Not all of them but I think a lot of them are more conservative than people realize. Look at the conservatives in Hollywood and in the past...Mel Gibson, Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, Tom Selleck, Drew Carey, Tom Arnold, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. There are a lot of them. I'm not saying that they are all, "ultra conservative." Just that they have right wing leanings.

Even though you say you're trying not to stereotype, and I trust you on that, I'm still a little insulted. Not only at your use of fashion and fitness to define "art." But also at your suggestion that conservatives support "art" because they are more likely to spend money on fitness and fashion and that somehow makes liberals not as creative. How long did you think this theory through before you posted it?

How is fashion not art???? I don't understand. Fashion is just as much art as anything else is. I didn't mean because conservatives have more money by any means. When did I say that? I don't know who actually has more money. There are tons of liberals in America who are very wealthy. My point was just that conservatives, I think, tend to support the fashion industry more than liberals.

 

[George_Washington]

If you think that science and mathematics are dry and boring, you've obviously never delved into it to any depth. Mathematics is all about elegance and beauty, and a damned lot of creativity. When you're dealing with genuine, high-level math, there is very little computation or number-crunching going on. Trying to create a mathematical proof requires massive amounts of reasoning ability and creativity, and it should not be belittled.

If you don't believe me, look up something like Euclid's proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. It is simple, elegant, and brilliant.

Oh Jesus. That's not what I meant, Enigmo! I didn't mean that math sucks or something. I had more math classes than most people in my field of study. What I meant was that some far left wing liberals I've seen just don't have the same kind of dynamic personalities that their conservative counterparts have.

 

[mixedmedia]

Well, fashion is definitely a form of the arts and fitness goes hand in hand with fashion, since the vast majority of designer clothes are made to fit people who are in shape.



Yes! Not all of them but I think a lot of them are more conservative than people realize. Look at the conservatives in Hollywood and in the past...Mel Gibson, Ronald Reagan, Charlton Heston, Tom Selleck, Drew Carey, Tom Arnold, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. There are a lot of them. I'm not saying that they are all, "ultra conservative." Just that they have right wing leanings.



How is fashion not art???? I don't understand. Fashion is just as much art as anything else is. I didn't mean because conservatives have more money by any means. When did I say that? I don't know who actually has more money. There are tons of liberals in America who are very wealthy. My point was just that conservatives, I think, tend to support the fashion industry more than liberals.

George, I like you and don't want to fight with you, but if you think the fashion industry is just as much an art form as any other, than I could easily draw the conclusion that conservatives have "artless" imaginations. You think Mel Gibson considers The Passion to be on par artistically with the newest Armani suit? I think many liberals see fashion as a shallow meaningless preoccupation. I know I do. They're just clothes. They bring nothing to the lives of other people. They do not provoke thought and emotion. Those things are the functions of ART. I view fashion as a consumer commodity like cars and technology. It is not art in the way of Citizen Kane or a Rembrandt self-portrait or Mozart's Requiem. They simply cannot be compared.

And fitness has absolutely NOTHING to do with art. It is a matter of health, and for many, another expression of consumerist self-absorption.

 

[Gardener]

Of the friends I have had in my life who were artists, one was a fine artist working in oils and she was very liberal, one was a fine artist working in watercolors and he was a conservative Christian, one was a graphic artist who described himself as an anarcho-syndacalist, one was a graphic artist who was a conservative Christian (male) and one was a fine artist working in ceramics who didn't like talking about politics at all, but I assumed to be left of center because she was a lesbian. Only my assumption there, however.

Of these, the first was very fashionable in a Bohemian chic sort of way, the second dressed in an aggressivly punkish fashion, the third put on whatever he had handy, the forth was very meticulous about his looks in a sort of Brooks Brothers way, and I can't remember ever seeing the fifth in anything but very casual wear.

Can't say I would draw too many conclusions from the poeple I have known.

 

[George_Washington]

George, I like you and don't want to fight with you, but if you think the fashion industry is just as much an art form as any other, than I could easily draw the conclusion that conservatives have "artless" imaginations. You think Mel Gibson considers The Passion to be on par artistically with the newest Armani suit? I think many liberals see fashion as a shallow meaningless preoccupation. I know I do. They're just clothes. They bring nothing to the lives of other people. They do not provoke thought and emotion. Those things are the functions of ART. I view fashion as a consumer commodity like cars and technology. It is not art in the way of Citizen Kane or a Rembrandt self-portrait or Mozart's Requiem. They simply cannot be compared.

And fitness has absolutely NOTHING to do with art. It is a matter of health, and for many, another expression of consumerist self-absorption.

Ok so wait, you admit that Armani clothes are art but yet you say fashion as a whole isn't?

Media, fashion designers are artists just as much as anyone else. I'd like to see you tell Giorgio Armani, Roberto Cavalli, Donatella Versace, J. Lindeberg, the Dolche & Gabanna duo, Kenneth Cole, Ralph Lauren, or any of the other leading modern designers that they have worked hard for years perfecting their drawing, painting, designing, and creative talents only to be told that they are not artists. Gianni Versace was just as good a sketcher as anybody who works for Disney or anybody in the last 50 years, for that matter.

Really, that's just stupid and utterly ridiculous. See what I mean? You liberals claim to support the arts...but only when it's something you consider to be art. Thanks for proving my point. What's really, "shallow" are people like you that choose to pick and choose what you consider to be art and then say that we don't support the arts. Absolute hypocrisy.

 

[Gardener]

I think many liberals see fashion as a shallow meaningless preoccupation. I know I do.

There is a young woman I have noticed around town here. She has a towering mohawk that must stand two feet above her head and is colored in vaying hues of green and blue and pink. Her clothes are this wonderful pastiche of pieces she must have found in second hand stores, with layers of taffeta and leather and bangles and lace, all thrown together almost haphazzardly, but really not haphazzard at all. I think it's great, because she has obviously put a lot of time and work into it, and IMO she is a walking art piece. I like the effect she gets.

Now, I don't think this is what GW necessarily had in mind, but I do think there are instances where fashion can be art.

 

[Engimo]

Oh Jesus. That's not what I meant, Enigmo! I didn't mean that math sucks or something. I had more math classes than most people in my field of study. What I meant was that some far left wing liberals I've seen just don't have the same kind of dynamic personalities that their conservative counterparts have.

Then I change my criticism. Your argument is not flawed on the basis that it mischaracterizes so-called "left-brain" fields of study, it is flawed on its brash generalizations, lack of any meaningful quantitative information, and nonsensicality.

 

[mixedmedia]

Ok so wait, you admit that Armani clothes are art but yet you say fashion as a whole isn't?

No, I did not say that Armani clothes are art.

Media, fashion designers are artists just as much as anyone else. I'd like to see you tell Giorgio Armani, Roberto Cavalli, Donatella Versace, J. Lindeberg, the Dolche & Gabanna duo, Kenneth Cole, Ralph Lauren, or any of the other leading modern designers that they have worked hard for years perfecting their drawing, painting, designing, and creative talents only to be told that they are not artists. Gianni Versace was just as good a sketcher as anybody who works for Disney or anybody in the last 50 years, for that matter.

So you think a pair of shoes are on par artistically with Dostoevsky's The Idiot? You believe a dress has the same artistic value as Beethoven's Ode to Joy? You believe fashion sketching is on a par with Van Gogh's Starry Night? And you want to call me shallow? I don't know if you're aware of this, George, but Zoolander was a COMEDY. :roll:

Really, that's just stupid and utterly ridiculous. See what I mean? You liberals claim to support the arts...but only when it's something you consider to be art. Thanks for proving my point. What's really, "shallow" are people like you that choose to pick and choose what you consider to be art and then say that we don't support the arts. Absolute hypocrisy.

No, I support art. You are ignorant of what art is. No hypocrisy.

 

[mixedmedia]

There is a young woman I have noticed around town here. She has a towering mohawk that must stand two feet above her head and is colored in vaying hues of green and blue and pink. Her clothes are this wonderful pastiche of pieces she must have found in second hand stores, with layers of taffeta and leather and bangles and lace, all thrown together almost haphazzardly, but really not haphazzard at all. I think it's great, because she has obviously put a lot of time and work into it, and IMO she is a walking art piece. I like the effect she gets.

Now, I don't think this is what GW necessarily had in mind, but I do think there are instances where fashion can be art.

In instances where fashion is used as a form of personal expression, I will give George's argument that benefit. But like you say, I do not think that is what he had in mind.

 

[George_Washington]

Then I change my criticism. Your argument is not flawed on the basis that it mischaracterizes so-called "left-brain" fields of study, it is flawed on its brash generalizations, lack of any meaningful quantitative information, and nonsensicality.

There was never a quantitative basis for my argument in the first place, Enigmo. I was thinking about the nature of conservatives and liberals and I wanted to just put out my thoughts for people to read, so that we might have a discussion. As usual though you have to get anal and overly analytical about the whole thing.

 

[George_Washington]

So you think a pair of shoes are on par artistically with Dostoevsky's The Idiot? You believe a dress has the same artistic value as Beethoven's Ode to Joy? You believe fashion sketching is on a par with Van Gogh's Starry Night? And you want to call me shallow? I don't know if you're aware of this, George, but Zoolander was a COMEDY. :roll:

No, I support art. You are ignorant of what art is. No hypocrisy.

I believe it is you sir, that is ignorant about what art is. Art isn't just limited to paintings or musicial compositions. The original purpose of my thread wasn't to debate what art was but that's what you want to turn it into, than fine.

A pair of shoes, a dress, a suit, etc...is on par artistically with Dosteovsky or any other painters, musicians, and whatnot. Come on Media, how much do you really know about art and fashion? Fashion has been a hobby of my for a long time. I bet you hadn't even heard of half of the names I mentioned. Anywhere, all of the major cities that support the arts, New York, London, Paris, Milan, etc. all have art schools with fashion programs. Fashion is very highly regarded as an art form because every design begins as a sketch, rather it be with pencil, brush, etc. There are people that spend many years drawing and painting in order to design truly original, "couture" outfits that are one of a kind. That is why so many art museums around the world have fashion exhibits.

 

[mixedmedia]

I believe it is you sir, that is ignorant about what art is. Art isn't just limited to paintings or musicial compositions. The original purpose of my thread wasn't to debate what art was but that's what you want to turn it into, than fine.

First off, I am not a sir. I am a woman. What was the purpose of this debate, GW? You purported that liberals aren't supportive of art because they are not into fashion. That is an inane and insulting theory so I chose to debate you on it. Poor you.

A pair of shoes, a dress, a suit, etc...is on par artistically with Dosteovsky or any other painters, musicians, and whatnot.

No they are not. Art is supposed to make you feel something. It is supposed to show you the world through the eyes of the artist. Clothing, while it can be a channel of creativity and used to promote a personal style, it is not art.

Come on Media, how much do you really know about art and fashion? Fashion has been a hobby of my for a long time. I bet you hadn't even heard of half of the names I mentioned.

I have heard of all of them actually. How much do you know about the fine arts, about literature, about music?

Anywhere, all of the major cities that support the arts, New York, London, Paris, Milan, etc. all have art schools with fashion programs. Fashion is very highly regarded as an art form because every design begins as a sketch, rather it be with pencil, brush, etc. There are people that spend many years drawing and painting in order to design truly original, "couture" outfits that are one of a kind. That is why so many art museums around the world have fashion exhibits.

Fashion is design, George, it is not art. But, you know what? You want to call it that, then fine, I really don't care. What I do take exception to is your shallow assertion that because liberals aren't "into" fashion and fitness then they are not supportive of the arts which is the biggest bullshit theory I have seen purported about liberals here yet. Congratulations.

 

[George_Washington]

No they are not. Art is supposed to make you feel something. It is supposed to show you the world through the eyes of the artist. Clothing, while it can be a channel of creativity and used to promote a personal style, it is not art.

Oh and clothing can't make you feel something? Clothing can't make you see the world through the eyes of the artist? That is so naive. I bet if you asked any professional artist those questions, he or she would say yes. Clothing is just as much art as any drawing or painting is. If someone paints something and puts it on a shirt, how is it being on a piece of material any less indicative of its artistic properties than if that person would put it on a canvas?

Designing clothing is also a but of science because you have to know about materials, chemistry, etc, but it is also art.

I have heard of all of them actually. How much do you know about the fine arts, about literature, about music?

Well, obviously I have broader definition and a more open minded attitude of art than you do. I suppose people who draw for video games and other technological things aren't actually artists either.

Fashion is design, George, it is not art. But, you know what? You want to call it that, then fine, I really don't care. What I do take exception to is your shallow assertion that because liberals aren't "into" fashion and fitness then they are not supportive of the arts which is the biggest bullshit theory I have seen purported about liberals here yet. Congratulations.

It was just a conjecture of mine, it wasn't meant to be something that should be, "academically rigorous." But I do think it holds some merit. Traditionally, liberals have attacked designers for their use of animals in their clothing because a lot of animal rights groups tend to be Democratic. I remember how back in the 80s, Phil Donahue attacked Armani and other designers for using animals. There are just certain industries that Republicans support more than Democrats do. For example, Republicans give more funding to the financial industries whereas Democrats give more funding to the Motion Picture Industry, overall. I remember looking at the list of contributions a while back.

 

[Engimo]

There was never a quantitative basis for my argument in the first place, Enigmo. I was thinking about the nature of conservatives and liberals and I wanted to just put out my thoughts for people to read, so that we might have a discussion. As usual though you have to get anal and overly analytical about the whole thing.

Sorry, I just have a problem with arguments that are presented as valid when they don't have any genuine evidence or merit. Your entire first post is based on conjecture and broad generalizations about large groups of people. I don't think it's particularly anal to ask for some support of this outside of your anecdotal personal experience when we are trying to discuss the validity of what you're saying.

 

[mixedmedia]

Oh and clothing can't make you feel something? Clothing can't make you see the world through the eyes of the artist? That is so naive. I bet if you asked any professional artist those questions, he or she would say yes. Clothing is just as much art as any drawing or painting is. If someone paints something and puts it on a shirt, how is it being on a piece of material any less indicative of its artistic properties than if that person would put it on a canvas?

Designing clothing is also a but of science because you have to know about materials, chemistry, etc, but it is also art.




Well, obviously I have broader definition and a more open minded attitude of art than you do. I suppose people who draw for video games and other technological things aren't actually artists either.




It was just a conjecture of mine, it wasn't meant to be something that should be, "academically rigorous." But I do think it holds some merit. Traditionally, liberals have attacked designers for their use of animals in their clothing because a lot of animal rights groups tend to be Democratic. I remember how back in the 80s, Phil Donahue attacked Armani and other designers for using animals. There are just certain industries that Republicans support more than Democrats do. For example, Republicans give more funding to the financial industries whereas Democrats give more funding to the Motion Picture Industry, overall. I remember looking at the list of contributions a while back.

Well, perhaps with hindsight, maybe you can see that you should have named this thread "Republicans are more supportive of the fashion industry." As a person who has been reading books since she was old enough to read, is a film buff, a lover of music and art (and the mother of artists - one of whom also is very much into clothing design, but has the artistic insight to know fashion is far from the Sistine chapel) I took a grand exception to your conjecture.

 

[George_Washington]

Well, perhaps with hindsight, maybe you can see that you should have named this thread "Republicans are more supportive of the fashion industry." As a person who has been reading books since she was old enough to read, is a film buff, a lover of music and art (and the mother of artists - one of whom also is very much into clothing design, but has the artistic insight to know fashion is far from the Sistine chapel) I took a grand exception to your conjecture.

That's ok. I like art and films, too. But still, you say you have a son who's designer but yet you object to fashion? I would think you, being a mother, would want to support your son's chosen career path...

Maybe I should have explained myself more. My reasons for my post were because of the attacks the fashion industry has taken from animal rights groups. There are many things that designers do in other countries like you know, Italy and such, that would be highly objectable over here. Such as the use of baby lambs for shoes, the use of rabbit fur and many other natural animal skins. A lot of people think that fashion designers just export their clothes to China just because of the cheaper labor. There's some truth to this but there are also more lax enviromental laws over there and in other parts of the world, which has to do with the way leather and suede is processed. I don't know all the details but for example, the Marc New York company makes their leather coats in China because the way they treat and process the leather isn't allowed over here because it's supposedly bad for the enviroment.

You know, groups like PETA for one constantly protest the fashion industry. Here's an example:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Fashion/Fashion-controversy/2005/02/11/1108061836882.html

I object to groups like these and I also object to things that the EPA does and other enviromental regulations.

And I realize there is a difference between classic works of art like the Sistine Chapel, the classic artists like Leonardo, etc. But really, art is a matter of opinion and that's why I object to the liberal policy of making people pay taxes dollars to support museums that they consider to be, "more worthy art" than other kinds. I mean this is the main point I object to about the liberal mentality towards art. Maybe I could just as easily say other kinds of art are, "shallow and meaningless."

 

[mixedmedia]

That's ok. I like art and films, too. But still, you say you have a son who's designer but yet you object to fashion? I would think you, being a mother, would want to support your son's chosen career path...

She is my daughter....she is not a designer, it is a hobby with her - she is still a teenager....and we have different opinions on many things, yet I will always support her in anything she chooses to do. As always. My opinion on fashion doesn't bother her or get in the way of her doing whatever she wants to do. It's not as if I have a running campaign against fashion.

Maybe I should have explained myself more. My reasons for my post were because of the attacks the fashion industry has taken from animal rights groups. There are many things that designers do in other countries like you know, Italy and such, that would be highly objectable over here. Such as the use of baby lambs for shoes, the use of rabbit fur and many other natural animal skins. A lot of people think that fashion designers just export their clothes to China just because of the cheaper labor. There's some truth to this but there are also more lax enviromental laws over there and in other parts of the world, which has to do with the way leather and suede is processed. I don't know all the details but for example, the Marc New York company makes their leather coats in China because the way they treat and process the leather isn't allowed over here because it's supposedly bad for the enviroment.

Well, why didn't you say any of this in your OP?

You know, groups like PETA for one constantly protest the fashion industry. Here's an example:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Fashion/Fashion-controversy/2005/02/11/1108061836882.html

I object to groups like these and I also object to things that the EPA does and other enviromental regulations.

Well, just to open your eyes to the broad range of opinions out there, my daughter, who is very much into fashion, is also an animal lover and does not support the fur industry.

And I realize there is a difference between classic works of art like the Sistine Chapel, the classic artists like Leonardo, etc. But really, art is a matter of opinion and that's why I object to the liberal policy of making people pay taxes dollars to support museums that they consider to be, "more worthy art" than other kinds. I mean this is the main point I object to about the liberal mentality towards art. Maybe I could just as easily say other kinds of art are, "shallow and meaningless."

Maybe because great works of art deserve to be preserved and fashion designers make millions of dollars every year?
And let me also add, when it comes to the NEA, I don't always support the use of tax dollars to support present day artists. I tend to believe they should rely on patronage and actually selling their works. But I absolutely do support art education and the housing of our national treasures.

 

[George_Washington]

Well, why didn't you say any of this in your OP?

Well, I guess I should have but first I just wanted to see what people thought about the nature of liberal versus conservative mindsets. I don't know, I just wanted to see what kind of responses I got. I really didn't mean to offend you or anyone else though, I promise.

Well, just to open your eyes to the broad range of opinions out there, my daughter, who is very much into fashion, is also an animal lover and does not support the fur industry.

I respect your daughter's opinion and yours as well if you think that. But I just don't see why people object to the use of furs. Not unless the said animal is going extinct but I think evidence shows that the more we have a use for animals, the more less likely they are to be extinct. I mean think about it. Why haven't chickens gone extinct? Because we eat them. Because we have a use for them. As long as the animal doesn't suffer, I really don't see what the harm is in wearing their skin or their fur. Besides, a coat that is lined with real fur keeps you very, very warm in the winter. Plus it feels really nice. Plus it looks really nice.

Maybe because great works of art deserve to be preserved and fashion designers make millions of dollars every year?

Hmmm...but think about that concept, "great works of art". You're thinking of just the old kind of stuff like the renaissance paintings, sculptures, etc. But are those the only things that are great works of art?

One thing that might spark your curiosity-A Burmester preamplifier sits in the Berlin Museum of Art. The people of Berlin think that it is just as much art as it is science. I would even say that science, art, and mathematics are all intermixed.

 

[mixedmedia]

Hmmm...but think about that concept, "great works of art". You're thinking of just the old kind of stuff like the renaissance paintings, sculptures, etc. But are those the only things that are great works of art?

One thing that might spark your curiosity-A Burmester preamplifier sits in the Berlin Museum of Art. The people of Berlin think that it is just as much art as it is science. I would even say that science, art, and mathematics are all intermixed.

Many museums show design exhibits and house them in their permanent collections and I take no exception to that. Design is nice to look at. But when I viewed Starry Night by Van Gogh in Houston last year, it literally took my breath away. And there is only one, and you can stand there right where he stood to paint it and see through his eyes. You can see his madness, his joy, his sorrow, his loneliness all wrapped up in this one painting. That is the function of art, George. It's not "old kind of stuff." It is a way to see the world through another's eyes, and through the preservation of these works we can see back in time. Ever stared at the wonder of a Rembrandt painting and realize that there was no such thing as electricity in his day? That his paintings with their remarkable and curious realism were painted by candlelight? That the paints they used then were all handmade and many of the colors toxic? And that, if we are lucky, we can stand in front of them, right where he stood 500 years ago and see what he saw? I think that is a remarkable thing. Not to mention, when you peer up close, how he was able to make all those irregular little brush strokes into a strikingly realistic image.

Sorry to go on and on. But you mentioned some dismay at tax dollars going to house these works of art. I think that is foolish and short-sighted. And go ahead and love design, if that's your thing, go for it, but realize that an appreciation for the masters of art can only enhance any endeavor into the creative realm. Don't be dismissive of what you think is "old."