Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kickstarter Expects To Provide More Funding To The Arts Than NEA

idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Kickstarter Expects To Provide More Funding To The Arts Than NEA

#21

Post by Jun8 »

tomjen3 wrote: post #17
Jun8 wrote: post #8

The title compares all the money given out by Kickstarter (including non-art projects) to NEA's budget, which as of now is not a fair comparison. However, I think this is a technicality, since at the rate KS is growing, the comparison will be valid very soon. The second apples and oranges point is stronger though: Look at the types of projects that NEA funds, e.g. translation projects in 2011 ( http://www.nea.gov/gra…

A writer has to write a book I want to buy if he expects to make money of it. A cook has to make the kind of food I want to eat. Why shouldn't an artist?

The problem is that usually in arts the public taste may lag the true appreciation sometimes by centuries, so a greedy algorithm will end up not funding some of the great works of art that are considered worthless in their time.

Re: Kickstarter Expects To Provide More Funding To The Arts Than NEA

#22

Post by grandalf »

Does anyone really consider the NEA a significant source of funding? The vast majority of "artists" produce things that people happily pay money for, and the notion of subsidy is unnecessary.

The idea that what the NEA funds is "real art" and the associated disdain for commercially viable art is in my opinion fairly perverse.

Re: Kickstarter Expects To Provide More Funding To The Arts Than NEA

#23

Post by hnal943 »

astrange wrote: post #15
hnal943 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the problem with the NEA is that their funding source is taxpayers, many of whom are "contributing" to art against their will. The kickstarter model is much more direct and is funded and controlled by the people that want the art. It stands to reason that getting rid of the NEA would result in better art and a freer society.

You think better art is the same as art people want? Even that's not the same as art people think they want ahead of time.

I think that the quality of art is subjective. I would rather have art that many people want enough to fund directly than the art preferred by a few bureaucrats.

Re: Kickstarter Expects To Provide More Funding To The Arts Than NEA

#24

Post by liber8 »

Jun8 wrote: post #21
tomjen3 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A writer has to write a book I want to buy if he expects to make money of it. A cook has to make the kind of food I want to eat. Why shouldn't an artist?

The problem is that usually in arts the public taste may lag the true appreciation sometimes by centuries, so a greedy algorithm will end up not funding some of the great works of art that are considered worthless in their time.

You're misstating history. There are no "great works of art that are considered worthless in their time". They were considered valuable, if by no one else, by those that created them, and whoever happened to hang onto them, and pass them down through the ages. (After all, they still exist today.)

But in almost all cases, it wasn't just the artists who considered their works valuable: many other people did as well. That's generally why they were able to continue to produce art. Patrons, who did appreciate their work, even if the general public didn't, bought it, and supported the artists.

Re: Kickstarter Expects To Provide More Funding To The Arts Than NEA

#25

Post by feralchimp »

ajross wrote: post #18
feralchimp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NEA is doing this as a public service, funding people who wouldn't have been funded otherwise. Many would argue that "taking taxpayer money to fund something that no one would pay for" is a coherent definition for "public disservice ."

That's a distortion. You don't mean "no one would pay", you mean "no one would pay enough", which is a very different metric. No one would pay enough to build a nice mural or sculpture in a poor neighborhood, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. Likewise the translation projects in the grandparent post aren't going to appeal to the mostly English-speaking, wealthy technolibertarians like yourself. But they sti…

> You don't mean "no one would pay", you mean "no one would pay enough"

Fair enough, but that distinction only makes a real difference if the NEA commonly does "last mile" funding (the last 5-20% to reach a threshold of viability, say). Is that the case?

> No one would pay enough to build a nice mural or sculpture in a poor neighborhood, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

1. The fact that someone has not yet paid, by some date, to build a nice mural or sculpture in some particular poor neighborhood, is not a proof that no one would pay to do so.

2. When I have participated in such projects, they were municipally funded in addition to neighborhood donations of time and materials, and I doubt any expenses were recouped from some NEA "hood aid" package.

3. If you think it's worth doing, do it.

> The straightforward corrolary to what you wrote is that the artistic desires of the wealthy are inherently more valuable

Artistic desire is a universal to which all humans are entitled. The power to commission other people of talent to create physical manifestations of my artistic desire is something I am only entitled to if I can afford to pay those people for their time and materials.

Re: Kickstarter Expects To Provide More Funding To The Arts Than NEA

#26

Post by cyrus_ »

Jun8 wrote: post #8

The title compares all the money given out by Kickstarter (including non-art projects) to NEA's budget, which as of now is not a fair comparison. However, I think this is a technicality, since at the rate KS is growing, the comparison will be valid very soon. The second apples and oranges point is stronger though: Look at the types of projects that NEA funds, e.g. translation projects in 2011 ( http://www.nea.gov/gra…

Popularly accessible art can be funded by things like KS, or simply by the market more generally. Art that is not (currently) popularly accessible -- stuff that is either at the frontiers, or is making a contribution that is not immediately evident to a lay person -- cannot. Is this kind of art valuable? Of course it is. Today's avante garde is tomorrow's pop art, just as today's cutting edge science is tomorrow's consumer technology (but not all of it.)

Re: Kickstarter Expects To Provide More Funding To The Arts Than NEA

#27

Post by ajross »

feralchimp wrote: post #25
ajross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a distortion. You don't mean "no one would pay", you mean "no one would pay enough", which is a very different metric. No one would pay enough to build a nice mural or sculpture in a poor neighborhood, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. Likewise the translation projects in the grandparent post aren't going to appeal to the mostly English-speaking, wealthy technolibertarians like yourself. But they sti…

> You don't mean "no one would pay", you mean "no one would pay enough" Fair enough, but that distinction only makes a real difference if the NEA commonly does "last mile" funding (the last 5-20% to reach a threshold of viability, say). Is that the case? > No one would pay enough to build a nice mural or sculpture in a poor neighborhood, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. 1. The fact that someone has not yet…

> 1. The fact that someone has not yet paid, by some date, to build a nice mural or sculpture in some particular poor neighborhood, is not a proof that no one would pay to do so.

Doesn't this invalidate your whole point then? How can it be a public disservice to fund this stuff if it's never possible to know if it's unwanted?

Shrug. I know the libertarian line on this. I just think it falls down in the face of reality. It's nice to imagine that your government is lighting your precious tax dollars on fire with its wasteful nonsense, but the real world is always more complicated.

Re: Kickstarter Expects To Provide More Funding To The Arts Than NEA

#28

Post by liber8 »

cyrus_ wrote: post #26
Jun8 wrote: post #8

The title compares all the money given out by Kickstarter (including non-art projects) to NEA's budget, which as of now is not a fair comparison. However, I think this is a technicality, since at the rate KS is growing, the comparison will be valid very soon. The second apples and oranges point is stronger though: Look at the types of projects that NEA funds, e.g. translation projects in 2011 ( http://www.nea.gov/gra…

Popularly accessible art can be funded by things like KS, or simply by the market more generally. Art that is not (currently) popularly accessible -- stuff that is either at the frontiers, or is making a contribution that is not immediately evident to a lay person -- cannot. Is this kind of art valuable? Of course it is. Today's avante garde is tomorrow's pop art, just as today's cutting edge science is tomorrow's co…

Where does this idea that art that is not "popularly accessible" cannot be supported by the market? Such art might not be supported by the mainstream or by the "lay person" as you call them, but those people do not make up the entirety of the market.

For nearly all of civilized history there have been patrons of the arts. When did these people suddenly get removed from "the market"?

(Also, note that if "avante garde" art was supported by the "lay people" [meaning it went mainstream], it would, by definition, cease being "avante garde")

Re: Kickstarter Expects To Provide More Funding To The Arts Than NEA

#29

Post by vibrunazo »

adestefan wrote: post #13
vibrunazo wrote: post #4

What does this do to the whole "but art will cease to exist if artists can't have absurd monopoly rights over copyrighted material" argument, which the MAFIAA seem to love so much? If people are willing to fund arts regardless of legal obligation. Then the number one pillar sustaining the copyright "morals" gets easily destroyed. Crowdfunding demonstrates that if we completely remove copyright laws: art will survive.

I have no idea how you're making that connection. It also doesn't help your argument when you use "MAFIAA."

If people are willing to fund arts, even without being forced to. Then art will still be funded, even if there are no laws forcing people to.

Which is the opposite of the main pillar argument for copyright enforcement.

Re: Kickstarter Expects To Provide More Funding To The Arts Than NEA

#30

Post by DilipJ »

tomjen3 wrote: post #17
Jun8 wrote: post #8

The title compares all the money given out by Kickstarter (including non-art projects) to NEA's budget, which as of now is not a fair comparison. However, I think this is a technicality, since at the rate KS is growing, the comparison will be valid very soon. The second apples and oranges point is stronger though: Look at the types of projects that NEA funds, e.g. translation projects in 2011 ( http://www.nea.gov/gra…

A writer has to write a book I want to buy if he expects to make money of it. A cook has to make the kind of food I want to eat. Why shouldn't an artist?

historically, artists were sponsored by wealthy individuals or institutions to create art. Some of the great European painters of the last few centuries were sponsored by the Catholic Church. If Kickstarter can provide that, what's the problem?
Post reply on HN