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

31–38 of 38 posts

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

#31

Post by MaysonL »

feralchimp wrote: post #11
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…

> 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 ."

How many people would have paid money back in the '60s and '70s for the Internet? And yet ARPA funded it with "taxpayer money"

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

#32

Post by MaysonL »

hnal943 wrote: post #10
prolepunk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just your opinion, in an excerpt from the article Kickstarter co-founder Yancey Strickler stated: As Strickler explained, the milestone is “good” in the sense that it means that Kickstarter may now reach a point where it will funnel as much money to the arts as the federal agency primarily responsible for supporting them, effectively doubling the amount of art that can get funded in the country.

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.

The same could be said about DOD and TSA.

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

#33

Post by yummyfajitas »

ajross wrote: post #27
feralchimp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 realit…

How can it be a public disservice to fund this stuff if it's never possible to know if it's unwanted?

The theory is that in the universe of all possible projects, the vast majority are a bad idea. E.g., most startups fail. So unless we have some compelling reason to believe a project is a good idea, it is likely to be wasteful.

...but the real world is always more complicated.

This is a logical fallacy. You are claiming the world is more complicated, and then assuming the complexity hides facts or mechanisms which would support your preferred policy. But you don't even attempt to explain these mechanisms.

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

#34

Post by ajross »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #33
ajross wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 realit…

How can it be a public disservice to fund this stuff if it's never possible to know if it's unwanted? The theory is that in the universe of all possible projects, the vast majority are a bad idea. E.g., most startups fail. So unless we have some compelling reason to believe a project is a good idea, it is likely to be wasteful. ...but the real world is always more complicated. This is a logical fallacy. You are claim…

Your first statement asserts that the "vast majority" of NEA projects are bad ideas. Seems that reality doesn't bear that out, most of them seem reasonable to me.

And the second is weird doublethink nonsense. Asserting that reality is complicated is just the truth. It's the libertarian position that is absolutist ("the vast majority of NEA projects are bad ideas", "no one wants to fund NEA projects"). My position is that for pretty much any project, there are people who want it and people who don't. And so you need to look carefully at the evidence and fund the stuff that's good. Where's the fallacy?

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

#35

Post by yummyfajitas »

ajross wrote: post #34
yummyfajitas wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can it be a public disservice to fund this stuff if it's never possible to know if it's unwanted? The theory is that in the universe of all possible projects, the vast majority are a bad idea. E.g., most startups fail. So unless we have some compelling reason to believe a project is a good idea, it is likely to be wasteful. ...but the real world is always more complicated. This is a logical fallacy. You are claim…

Your first statement asserts that the "vast majority" of NEA projects are bad ideas. Seems that reality doesn't bear that out, most of them seem reasonable to me. And the second is weird doublethink nonsense. Asserting that reality is complicated is just the truth. It's the libertarian position that is absolutist ("the vast majority of NEA projects are bad ideas", "no one wants to fund NEA projects"). My position is…

Your first statement asserts that the "vast majority" of NEA projects are bad ideas. Seems that reality doesn't bear that out, most of them seem reasonable to me.

Actually no, my first statement takes the universe of all projects as a reference class.

If you think the NEA picks good projects, go ahead and argue why that is the case. You haven't done that yet, you merely said "it's never possible to know if it's unwanted." I.e., you are assuming the facts we don't know will somehow support your position.

Asserting that reality is complicated is just the truth.

But there is absolutely no reason to believe complexity supports your position over any other position.

If you want to delve into the complexity and make an argument for the NEA, do it. You haven't yet.

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

#36

Post by dantheman »

Jun8 wrote: post #20
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 ."

There's quite a bit truth about your comment but I think it is somewhat simplistic. To better analyze your objection, let us remove the taxpayer part first: Should art projects be funded (by whatever means) that the general public sees no value in, i.e. this is how I parsed your "no one would pay for". This goes into deep discussions about "what is art", "how do you define the value of an art object" etc. Without goi…

I think both Warhol and Banksy were actually financial independent and didn't receive funding from government endowments.

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

#37

Post by feralchimp »

ajross wrote: post #27
feralchimp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 realit…

> How can it be a public disservice to fund this stuff if it's never possible to know if it's unwanted?

Because the funding comes from people who pay it under threat of force. Therefore, "not provably unwanted" shouldn't be the bar.

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

#38

Post by feralchimp »

Jun8 wrote: post #20
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 ."

There's quite a bit truth about your comment but I think it is somewhat simplistic. To better analyze your objection, let us remove the taxpayer part first: Should art projects be funded (by whatever means) that the general public sees no value in, i.e. this is how I parsed your "no one would pay for". This goes into deep discussions about "what is art", "how do you define the value of an art object" etc. Without goi…

> To better analyze your objection, let us remove the taxpayer part first: Should art projects be funded (by whatever means) that the general public sees no value in, i.e. this is how I parsed your "no one would pay for".

The fact that taxes are collected under threat of force is the entire basis for the objection. Any "funded" work of art, absent the use of stolen money, is by definition an artwork that someone would pay for.

The next time someone takes money from you at gunpoint, be sure to ask them whether they're doing so "to amortize the risk of finding the next Warhol or Banksy." One can hope, right?

Post reply on HN