[arcticbull]

Maybe. However, that yields art in the private interest. The people shouldn't have to hope for the scraps of the upper class to showcase their culture.

Ultimately, this leads to exactly what the parent is worried about: a culture of the coast for the coast. I doubt that the "coastal elites" are out in Louisiana and Nebraska paying for art galleries, or even interested in showcasing rural work in urban galleries. That's solved via broad-based social contributions.

[cvwright]

> a culture of the coast for the coast.

The people who don't like the NEH / NEA are arguing that that's what they're getting already. Only now, the people in Lousiana and Nebraska are being forced to pay for it as well.

[munk-a]

The people on the coasts don't get any benefit out of rural broadband initiatives but it got funded anyways... People outside of the eastern corridor don't benefit from I95 being resurfaced, people outside of texas don't benefit from national park funding there.

The US is a country, not everything directly benefits everyone - the NEH and NEA actually do funnel quite a bit of money into the center of the country, but their funding is lopsided toward urban centers because those are the locations that attract and can sustain artists. But, tomorrow, someone from LA can head to NY, become an artist, and work on qualifying for a grant - they can secure a grant where they are if they can demonstrate their research topic and get in contact with the NEH.

[Ohn0]

> The people on the coasts don't get any benefit out of rural broadband initiatives

Don't they though? Those are new potential customers and users. ie. market growth?

[arcticbull]

And I’m arguing that the problem isn’t who’s paying it’s where that money ends up; and destroying the whole thing throws out the good with the bad.