241–250 of 736 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> robbery: the action of taking property unlawfully from a person or place by force or threat of force. The language of Shakespeare and Seuss deserves better than this mindlessness. It is not robbery because it is not unlawful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irish here. It's a cultural thing. Ireland is the only country in the world whose national symbol is a musical instrument. Art is seen as a worthwhile endeavour even if it can't necessarily support itself as a private endeavour. It's for the same reason galleries and museums are subsidised by the government. Anyone can call themselves an artist but to receive this money you would have to have a portfolio of work that…
Milton Friedman wouldn’t have approved of a basic-income scheme restricted to artists. He would have argued that restricting the benefit to artists would distort incentives for choosing a profession in a way likely to reduce social welfare, and that eligibility by profession is a “welfare trap”: it’s hard to stop being an artist and start being something else when it means losing your guaranteed income. But Friedman…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like it mostly funnels money to rich kids, to be honest. Nobody else can afford to already be an artist.
Working artists, spouses, and semi-retirees are relatively common. ‘2,000 creative workers’ would make this quite competitive, even if it’s only 20k USD/year that could easily enable people to be artists who wouldn’t make a career of it on their own.
I don’t get it. Why are artists more deserving than unemployed insurance salespeople or carpet installers?
they do deserve, but looks like this is a pilot for UBI.
In the United States, the National Endowment for the Arts has issued more than 128,000 grants, totaling more than $5 billion, to fund the projects of American artists. These subsidies have not lacked controversy, and were eventually challenged at the Supreme Court level, during the Clinton administration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Art... If you or your parents would like to sample a NSF…
I don’t get it. Why are artists more deserving than unemployed insurance salespeople or carpet installers?
that's the way you do it
You play the guitar on the MTV
That ain't workin',
that's the way you do it
Money for nothin'
and your chicks for free
We got to install microwave ovens,
custom kitchen delivery
We got to move these refrigerators,
we got to move these Color TVs...
Dire Straits, Money for Nothing, 1985
Guest artist: Sting
https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Dire-Straits/Money-for-Not...
They had something like this in the Netherlands during the 80s. Basically everyone was out of a job back then so it didn't really matter. Worst recession since 1929. Artists had to make a buch of art which was then given to the government. The state ended up with entire warehouses filled with crap.
There was also the WPA program in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration The work also included infrastructure projects, and often would create public art to decorate the infrastructure. That is why you'll see far more decorative work when looking at bridges from that era, for example.
For a start, it's a lottery. 2000 randomers who call themselves artists will get no-questions-asked income regardless of their skill or importance as artists. We have people who are full time carers for family members who get less money in their allowance, and it's means-tested.
So you can be a millionaire heir / heiress, independently wealthy and still be eligible for it. One artist on Twitter bragged about getting it, and has been using the "extra money" to go on long holidays. It's basically free world travel for her.
Also, what is an artist? There's one guy on twitter who gets this income and really, he just seems to take bad semi pornographic photos. Like the world really needs more of that.
Another lady my wife knows personally is a terrible artist, never had any talent and doesn't make money. No sense of colour, no line skills, just paints awful blobs in awful colours. She's 100% in favour of this scheme and won't shut up about it on twitter.
My wife has been struggling to make an income from her art for decades, but has created a small business around it, wedding stationery, other print fits. Guess what? She probably doesn't qualify as "an artist" she "runs a small print business". She also thinks that the government could do a lot of practically things to make life easier for artists but it's easier to take your budget and just give it to random artists. No effort, no real benefit. It's laziness and incompetence.
I know exactly one "real" artist whose paintings will genuinely be hanging on walls for hundreds of years. He has no business around his art, he literally paints and holds exhibitions to sell his work. His name is famous in art circles and you can instantly recognise his style whenever you see it. His work is truly amazing. He has a wife and two kids and struggles sometimes. The long gaps between exhibitions, the worry that an exhibition won't go well. Anxiety, depression. Did he get this magic lottery? Did he fuck.
I don’t get it. Why are artists more deserving than unemployed insurance salespeople or carpet installers?
We need more art that pushes boundaries and remains controversial. Instead, we favor the type of artist who attracts the most attention through their personality, whether because of their looks or a manufactured edgy image, while producing mundane, lowest-common-denominator work. We must support contemporary artists who move us forward rather than remaining stuck in popularity contests or constant nostalgia.
Under the current system, it is almost inevitable that influencers use their status to promote gambling ads and NFTs, ruining the lives of their fans. We need to break this cycle of rewarding increasingly poor behavior while making it harder for independent artists to earn a living.