apriorion wrote:Do you mean by "free and accessible" that art should be subsidized by the government? Forced public economic support (i.e., taxation) makes education available to all of us (in most Western nations, at least), for otherwise teachers would have no means to support themselves. Realistically speaking, for someone to be a professional artist, they must be financially compensated for their efforts, which, to return to your analogy, is precisely what goes on in the public education system (though this is still done quite poorly, in my view).
Precisely what i meant, since the arts, literature, music, festivals, museums, fashion shows, etc etc are all connected, intertwined and bear reciprocal relations in some shape or form. Arts, just like education, play a major, if not vital part in mankind's existence, development, welfare and well-being. Not surprising that the government allocates funds to support the arts and in return, renders it accessible to all (through non profit events, convergence, corporate donations, etc).. not surprising either that arts patrons such as Lloyd E. Rigler (a great man) donated part of his life and fortune to the creation or a station that would broadcast classic arts 24/7 (" in hopes of enticing viewers to attend and support museums and live performances in their own community").
One sphere has to support the other in order to make society livable for all (corporations donating money to animal shelters and 3rd world countries for tax cuts, government and funding schools, hospitals, the arts, the military, with neither clear end in sight nor sure return on investment). Alas, it all comes down to money, and if it weren't for greed, the world would be a better place. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed.