Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco King
"Access to art" is a vague enough right that I'm not sure what I would be affirming or denying.
Like, if somebody is imprisoned and still has the right to access art the same way they have the right to food and water, does it satisfy that right to put a new painting in front of their face for a bit each week?
Or like, so long as a city has public art and a public access channel, does that fulfil its inhabitants' "right to access art?"
|
To be more specific: Does it seem reasonable to think of art as something a person should only be able to access fully and freely if they have the money to do so?