Art Funding Quotes

I was in the National Academy of Fine Arts and Design, on a scholarship. I was - still am - an artist. They were looking for an actor for 'Take a Giant Step,' and a producer liked my look and asked if I could act. I said, 'Yep!' Then I got into acting more or less just to make money for paints and canvases.

Art shouldn't be prohibited in public schools when kids in private schools always get it.

I think it would be bad for culture and the art if artists and people who develop the apparatus to support those artists don't get paid.

I do not want to see censorship, yet I don't believe a dime of taxpayer money should go into art that is clearly and visibly filth.

The Louvre stopped buying paintings in 1848, and neither the Metropolitan nor the Hermitage acquire contemporary material.

If I want to pursue the art of painting - or music or writing or sculpture - it requires only my time and a few dollars for materials. If, however, I want to produce a motion picture I have to go out and raise a million dollars!

First of all, what in this world does not revolve around money? But money is a big part of film, unlike a lot of other art forms.

Taxpayers don't want their money spent more than a very, very slender amount on actual buying art or paying for concerts.

Advertising has always been a huge unrecognised source of outdoor relief for the arts.

There will never be great architects or architecture without great patrons.

If you cut art from school, you're going to have a lot more looted shops.

When it comes to art, money is an unimportant detail. It just happens to be a huge unimportant detail.

Art usually only makes the news in America when the subject is money.

You can't argue that you have to have art, and prove it to anybody. Why should I give $1,000 to art when there are people starving? Of course, that's true. But just because you can't, theoretically, defend the arts, or make a sensible argument for their preservation, doesn't mean they're not important.

I wish that the arts were better supported, and you can't say that enough times, but I also believe that whatever happens, artists will keep going.

Money talks. It makes art. It determines what food we eat, whether we are cured or die, and what shoes we wear.

The arts need funding.

You want to put out a TV show? If you have the money to do it on your own, by yourself, and you have a TV network, you can do it by yourself. But the nature of the beast is, art needs finance. That's how this industry works. So until the Internet becomes our source of entertainment - and watch it, I believe it will - this is how things go.

In a budget, how important is art versus music versus athletics versus computer programming? At the end of the day, some of those trade-offs will be made politically.

Collectors are paying for our education by purchasing our art.

The only way to eliminate any government choice on what art is worthwhile, what art isn't worthwhile, is to get the government totally out of the business of funding.

The relationship between government and art must necessarily be a delicate one. It would not be appropriate for the government to try to define what is good or what is true or what is beautiful. But government can provide nourishment to the ground within which these ideas spring forth from the seeds of inspiration within the human mind.

A country like Belgium, or socialist countries in central Europe spend more money on art education than the United States, which is a really puzzling thought.

It would be difficult, in this day and age, to fund art that made racial slurs.

The United States and Turkey are the only two countries that don't have some kind of subsidy for the Arts. The whole culture in society has made certain films more acceptable. I turned down so many films in the '60s and '70s.