Not all artists depend directly on funding for their practice - but for some, of course it's critical.

Is it not so, that many of the most famous contemporary artists are the ones with very little recognition in their life, and most who will become famous after death have not really had any funding and were using the help they could get but was not promised much? I believe it is most important that in art there should always be that boosting of using the art not to make money but to enhance people's visual experience and shed some insight onto the artist's perception of the event. This is much harder to do with being indebted to someone that has been funding you that is trying to make their own distinctions in the artist's work.

Maybe Somerset Council should go ahead with the 100% cut in its arts funding as a mass cultural experiment. If the people of Somerset and its artists don't notice/feel/missout/lose or experience any change in arts employment, arts participation, tourist attraction, cultural norishment etc. then yes, let the grey suits cut the funding.

I suspect that the general public has a perception of arts funding as that of giving money to street performers or of funding obscure/rubbish public art works.

If there are no carnivals, no sponsored buskers, no murals, no sculpting, no art workshops what so ever, no free access to museums, no theatre, no poetry, no literature, no fireworks (for that is a creative activity) then what on earth are people to do during particular festive activities? - watch tv or travel to nearby Devon or Cornwall?

Cultural Tourists?

Look at this:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/the-council-that-wants-to-c...