2) Monies spent in this fashion is justified because of the oblique Good it does (supposedly) for the masses at large, and therefore each n’th individual who makes it up. But what about the Bad? How about the n’th guy who has his n’th job taxed away, and who kills his family and himself in his dispondency, all to fund this. If people get to warm their hearts over the non-specific, at large Good done by such transfers, then I get to imagine the specific Bad that could be done by such transfers, all to fund the likes of the Blue Shirt fiasco.

Real money went into this “art”, and sure it created some jobs for the assemblers, it whole cost and value is debatable, and it can be assured that the money that the county sunk into the damn thing would have been put to good, individually chosen, use.

Government should not be involved in funding art.
I don’t care if government financing produces good and plenty art or little and lousy art. If the conclusion of the book is: “in order to produce good art government must do A, B, and C” – I oppose that conclusion.

Government should not be involved in art in any way. It’s just one of the many things it should not do. I don’t care how this disengagement is going to influence art. I guess art will survive somehow !
(I love art as much as anybody !).