More Federal and State funding for the arts!

Anything that the State funds becomes

• an extension of State function.
• a political tool that enables one political class to further its agenda, which is to seize more power from the population.
  
• a strong arm that enables one political class to exercise its muscle over the rest of the population.
• an operational device, seen no longer as the inspiration of a free heart and mind, but rather as the program of a coercive agenda for change.

'Artists' as Servants of Power:  
The Obama administration remakes the National Endowment for the Arts.
By James Taranto
. . . the notorious Aug. 10 conference call in which administration officials urged artists to help promote President Obama's legislative agenda. . . . The NEA Web site describes its mission as follows: "supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education." Organizing propaganda for the party in power is not mentioned, nor is financially rewarding politically friendly artists. . . . This is not the first time the NEA has sparked controversy. Nearly two decades ago, during the George H.W. Bush administration, it was at the center over a battle over taste . . . It was obvious back then that much of the so-called arts community leaned left politically. At the time, Frohnmayer's NEA notwithstanding, the administration in power did not, so that artists could pose as oppositional figures, speaking truth--or at least shouting obscenities--to power. . . . Now that their side is in power, however, that adversary attitude stands exposed as a sham. The so-called oppositional artists are only too willing to act as handmaidens of the powerful. . . .  What we said about artists in the preceding paragraph applies to the so-called adversary press as well.

Soviet propaganda poster

"Study the Great Path of the Party of Lenin and Stalin!"

A relief depicting Lenin and Stalin, 

along with other Communist leaders, 

can be seen in the background, 

behind the inspired student 

of the Way of Lenin and Stalin.

The Cultural Revolution and Post-Mao Reforms: A Historical Perspective
By Tang Tsou (1986)
[p. 14] In 1963, the Maoists began a major effort to use traditional art forms to propagate Communist ideas.
[p. 51-52] Mao's endeavors encountered serious resistance in the field of literature and art. For the renewed and intensified application of Mao's doctrine that literature and art must serve politics would have imposed further limitations on the creative talents of writers and artists . . . Mao noted the resistance to his demands. He has been reported as having pointed out in 1963: " . . . Wasn't it absurd that many Communists showed enthusiasm in advancing feudal and capitalist art, but no zeal in promoting socialist art."
[p. 234] The Party Center also decided [after Mao's death] not to use the slogan that literature and art must serve politics, a slogan which had been derived from Mao's dictum of the subordination of literature and art to politics and had been used since the 1940s. In its place, the Party proposed the slogan that "literature and art should serve the people and socialism." [The reason for the change is] that the meaning of the new slogan is much broader than the old. For the people have a wide variety of spiritual needs--education, appreciation of beauty, recreation, and rest. . . . When political power is aliened from the people, what would . . . be the effect of the old slogan? The slogans that literature and art are subordinate to politics and should serve politics could be and were indeed interpreted as subordination and service to the political line or even a specific policy adopted at the moment. They made it impossible for the people to use literature and art to criticize the mistakes of the Party and the leaders.