Replies

I think we're approaching this from different perspectives ... what's consistent with the Constitution, vs. what's a good idea. If a municipality has a responsive government, I don't see why the public can't agree on art.

We had a very nice statue in Broken Arrow of our local WW2 Medal of Honor winner in his Creek Indian ceremonial regalia. The Scouts would bring flowers and flags on Memorial Day.

Actually it's a matter of scale.

In very small towns, government is far more participatory and representative. It is far easier for the residents to come to consensus and agree on things like a new statue or maybe even a mural. At the same time, very small towns don't have the money to support "the arts" so arguments over whether it is a good idea to bring the opera to Widespotintheroad, NC don't generally happen. In fact, should some of the townsfolk get uppity and suggest such a thing, they will be suitably chastised by their neighbors' laughter and derision.

However, beyond that somewhat arbitrary limit, it will be impossible for government to support anything that can be unarguably good for the community as a whole. In the case of Charlotte, the money they spend on "the arts" would better be spent on something else or, here's a radical idea, not spent at all. I don't care how pretty some may think the new mural/statue/gallery/whatever might be, I probably don't agree and I don't want the government confiscating my money to pay for it. There is literally no difference between that and someone taking money from me at the end of a gun and handing it over to their favorite artist. It's immoral and unconscionable.