Mario Rups claimed "culture (the arts) is the soul of a country" --
bringing me to Devil's Advocate the following:
 
   1.  Culture is not equivalent to "the arts" -- it is neither
       restricted to the arts, nor necessarily connected to them.
       Unless you're going to make this a tautology, and say
       that whatever 'expresses the soul of a people' is ipso facto
       an 'art'.   Be careful with this one -- it would include
       the Inquisition and ethnic cleansing as 'arts'!
 
   2.  Government support of the arts may be as detrimental to
       "true art" as any other single-source support.  The case can
       surely be persuasively made that sponsors create limits as to
       what is "worthy" or "acceptable" -- why should govt support
       be judged qualitatively different from corporate, say, or
       church, or wealthy-private-individual support?
 
   3.  If the soul of the country is indeed involved, perhaps
       the case is even stronger, for a separation of soul
       and state.
 
 
--bayla (putting up asbestos shield)  [log in to unmask]