Thus the motion on arts funding in the online edition of The Economist. Two fellows represent the two sides of the argument, but I decided not to read their statements. Or the ensuing discussion. As the readers are invited to vote on the motion, I voted “no” without any hesitation. As it turns out, I am in the minority of some forty percent. I decided not to join the online debate, either. In my mind, though, the issue is perfectly clear. By funding the arts, governments only sponsor the crap that passes as art nowadays. Without this sort of artificial stimulation, there would be less crap around. Most important, there would be less nationalistic art that celebrates countries rather than art itself. The art that would remain would satisfy real needs rather than whimsical bureaucrats and their crafty advisers from the art world. In short, governments should get out of the arts. If they are dying to stimulate anything, let them stimulate themselves.