I know an artist who tries to convince all her friends they should only buy original artwork. She also believes it's very, very important that the government pay people to produce art.

Undoubtedly, you'd be shocked if I didn't disagree with both arguments.

Regarding the first, there are some artists (Rembrandt, DaVinci, Degas, Matisse, Monet, Picasso, Escher, etc.) whose works bring great pleasure to many. Not every one of us can own an original by such an artist; cheap reproductions allow poor people like myself to enjoy the kind of art formerly only accessible to the rich or those lucky enough to live near a museum boasting such a masterpiece.

And sure, the lady up the street from me takes some nice B&W photos of rusting cars and old logs, but don't castigate me if I get more pleasure from an Ansel Adams reprint I bought at Target for $24.99.

On the second argument, it strikes me as distictly fascist for the government to pay people to produce art. Either you pay them to produce art which glorifies The State itself (artwork which screams "dictatorship!" to everyone except Hollywood's Castro-kissing elite) or you're basicly taking one man's money and giving it to another to produce art which is "good for him", quite whether he wants or likes such art or not -- in essence, dictating what peoples' artistic tastes should be.

Finally, regarding "high" versus "low" art, I love this quote from John Ray:

When champions of high art dismiss or devalue the pleasures people get from so-called low art, the argument will be reducible to something like this: “The experience I get when I look at a Rembrandt or listen to Mozart is more valuable than the experience you get when you look at or listen to whatever kitsch or sentimental outpourings you get pleasure from.”