Be Excellent To Each Other

Should artists have to work, or should the state offer a subsidy to support them whilst they do art?

Discuss.

Not touching this.

(Obviously I will.)

Yes.

They should work to earn a living. If they're good at it, they'll make a living out of their art. If not, they won't.

Same as every other field of human endeavour.

Would a basic subsidy enable them to be able to do more art, and get better, given tehy would have more time to do art?

But! But! But!

(This is going to be like the Olympic sport thing all over again, but fuck it!)

First question: Do you think art is important?

Yes (Unless they have another way to support themselves, ie sell the art?)



No



No

Define important. Human culture would be poorer without art. Human culture would be poorer without bacon, but we don't expect the government to subsidise smokehouses, we expect them to make their own money by producing things that are good.

Except that we subsidise farmers, so bad example.

Not really. We subsidise farms that produce essential items without which there would be a potential serious impact on people's ability to keep themselves fed. Neither art nor bacon fall into that category.

No-one said that this was a good policy.

Horrible example.

Bacon is something that most people are going to buy for a start, and is therefore a viable business choice. Art on the other hand, despite its importance (and yeah, we can argue about that all day but I'll just direct you to the Mona Lisa or an ancient Greek statue or whatever and tell you to shut up), isn't so viable.

So we have something that we arguably "need", but people are unlikely to make a career out of it without help at the beginning. Therefore I do think subsidies are necessary and I agree with them. Obviously they shouldn't be handed out willy-nilly, but as with nurturing sporting talent, I think artistic talent deserves the same treatment.

What metric could you apply to identify talent that could be nurtured?

Hold on - talent sponsorship is light years away from providing subsidies in order that artists wouldn't need to work. It's an utterly different proposition from the question in the OP.

Next?

That, of course, is the difficult part. And I don't know. Sport is generally objective - if you can run 100m in less than 10 seconds, you're good.

I honestly don't know. A panel of critics isn't necessarily ideal because they could very well reject the "next big thing". I dunno, if Damien Hirst had applied for funding and the critic panel laughed at him, we wouldn't have his AMAZING works of art. (I literally don't have an opinion on his art, I'm just using a well-known example.)

Is it? I misunderstood MaliA's question, then.

If you subsidise the artist, who knows what effect you are ultimately having on their artwork. An artists work must surely be affected by their life, so if you remove the struggle for time, money and recognition, do you damage their art, or better it? Also, who would decide which artist was worthy of the paid opportunity to do art?

Gnnnngh. This isn't going to end well, I suspect.

We did this at 's place a few years ago; IIRC it ended up with him telling me, in all seriousness, that it was fine for weed-heads or whoever to not work/claim benefits in perpetuity as long as they showed their Dole Officer they'd written a few songs that week or whatever. The usual land-of-milk-and-honey laughable bullshit, basically.

Why the fuck should I, and millions of other hardworking people who have to get up every morning and graft etc., be expected to pay for some self appointed "artist" (or would be artist) - who's perfectly able-bodied - to opt out of paying their own way and do what they want? (Same goes for someone who sits in front of a computer blogging all day as well)

I'm all for subsidising the Arts - that's something completely different. I agree that art enriches people's lives, including my own. But anyone who thinks it is their God-given right to basically opt out and expect *me* to pay for them, their accommodation and all the rest, especially in these awful times when there are huge competing genuine priorities for funding, most notably people who can't work through no fault of their own (e.g. genuine, non self-induced ill health) can GTFF as far as I'm concerned.

1) Should artists have to work, or should the state offer a subsidy to support them whilst they do art?
2) Should the state have a program of identifying talented artists, and sponsoring them to give them the opportunity to focus on their art?

The first question makes no value/talent judgement, the second does. The first question assumes all artists, the second doesn't.

Of course, there are many programmes in place to identify talented young artists and provide them with sponsorship. Some are state-funded, some are lottery or charity funded, some are privately funded.

Well I don't think anyone will disagree with you there, Cavey, but you're describing some sort of fraudster/benefit scrounged masquerading as an artist, rather than a talented person who wouldn't be able to do it without support.

Well I definitely didn't take that from the question. You're suggesting that MaliA was asking if we think the state should subsidise anyone who chooses not to work and declares themself an "artist"? Obviously the answer to that question is a no - it's not even a debatable issue.

Who decides who is talented? I personally disagree with a large portion of art critics, who are generally the people who are considered experts.

a) We've not tried it without any, so that might not be true (unlikely, I know)
b) Don't we have enough art now?

See above. I don't know.

Have enough art? What? Art is reflective of the time it was made. It evolves and offers commentary on social issues. You can't just stop the art and say "enough"! You doofus!

Btw: I find it helpful to think of "music" instead of "art" when answering questions about the importance of art*. Based on the assumption that music is comparable to "art" (and technically art in and of itself) and that music is as important to me as art is to society generally. Therefore, have we got "enough" music? No.

*Befause frankly I'm not arsed about paintings and shit, but they're undeniably important to society.

Not sure that good art generally makes money. Sometimes crap art does.

Surely the problem is that the worthiness of art can't be measured in it's moneyness?

I don't think we need a programme of government subsidy, though. There are loads of people making great music/art while holding down day jobs, a few are lucky enough to earn a living from it. I can't see what is wrong with the way things are.

Sure you can. Take your music example - if everyone stopped making music right now, I doubt it would affect me much - there's so much out there I've not heard yet that I don't think I'd even notice.
Granted the grand-kids might get a bit fed up with it

Point is, you can't pass this stuff of as fact, because we haven't ever tried it.

There is a presumption in the sunbsidy argument has to be a full time occupation. Of course it isn't in all circumstances. For example, Myp occassionally pretends to work and then plays guitar at the weekends. I'm not sure why am artist, especially a struggling one, would have to consider it a full time occupation, let alone choose to.

In this respect, there is a deviation from the supporting potential athletes argument, where an athlete may need to train many hours a day to reach the point that they can participate at a level that allows them to earn money. A 100m sprinter has to train for years to earn professional money, but an artist can sell their first painting.

Didn't we decide that video games were art? Should they be free then? What about music?

I reckon they should unblock the pirate bay.

I'd also add that as far as the broader point about subsidisation of the Arts as a whole is concerned, i.e. as managed and distributed via bona fide organisations such as the Arts Council or whatever (as distinct from an individual self-appointing himself as an "artist"), we must surely recognise that even there, there are priorities to consider. Given the finite/ever-dwindling public money pot, as paid for via the sweat of millions of ordinary people slaving away in the Rat Race, are we really saying that we'll give X billions to the Arts, but rebuilding crumbling schools, failing hospitals, pot-holed roads etc. can stuff off? For something so ephemeral as "aesthetic enjoyment", as opposed to priorities that are only too tangible and in-yer-face real?

Besides, I agree with others' sentiments in this thread. Much, if not most of what is considered "art" these days, by supposed learned critics and other commentators, is actually unmitigated pretentious, ugly, worthless tosh anyway, unworthy of not one penny piece of public money, in my humble estimation. Emperors' Clothes.

This thread was a fucking terrible idea!

Cavey, that’s an interesting sentiment. In the absence of state funding, do you think that other establishments would offer patronage to artists, and would those artists work under their patrons constraints (eg. “Paint a picture about how awesome churches are”)?

As an aside, I'd be a bit pissed off if an artist was supported with £50,000 cash, with that money, he took a dead goat, painted it blue and hung it from the ceiling, and it became an instant ubertwat masterpiece, and he sold it for £20m, and gave no financial support back to people who were in his position previously.

I say this with no idea whatsoever as to what Hirst/Emin/others have done with their financial riches.

Yes, I strongly suspect so. In fact, that's pretty much what did happen for centuries - wealthy people commissioning artists, just as for any other profession. Trickle down economics at work

But whether it does, or does not, isn't a massive concern for me, to be honest? I just want to see hard-won public money going to those who, quite clearly and demonstrably, have a genuine, dire need for it, very often through absolutely no fault of their own. Not to mention boring old infrastructural investment, which benefits arts lovers and "philistines" alike.



No doubt that would often be the case; he who pays the piper calls the tune. So it has ever been thus (including when the piper-payer is the government on behalf of the hapless UK taxpayer).

Do we think that a reliance on private patrons make the art produced more staid and conservative?

It possibly would, yes. But:

1) "Staid and conservative" is a fuck sight better than "bat-shit insane, irrelevant, ugly and pretentious" in my opinion. Half a dead goat in formaldehyde; banal, coloured splats, squares and stripes on canvass (or other medium) that looks as though produced via a 7-year old's potato press; an empty room; or unmade bed replete with pseudo-spaff filled condom anyone?

2) Regardless, it would certainly free up a large chunk of public cash to spend on demonstrably much more needy, genuine causes.

Plenty of private patrons already support the arts - lots of the big museums and art institutions have "Corporate Partners" who presumably chuck cash at them in return for their name being stuck next to a Rembrandt or on the programme for Don Giovanni, which is fine for a bank or accountancy firm, and beer companies sponsor the Fringe, to get their names next on programmes of performance installations where artists poop in buckets whilst singing Estonian folk songs.

I should tread carefully in this thread, after I became a songwriter last night. Work haven't taken my resignation in order to pursue my dream well.

If you're interested in anything creative then you use your own cash to fund it.

If your lucky then the thing you are interested in makes you money.

Have we missed out on something great because the person involved couldn't afford to devote any time to it, though, because they had to work?

Probably - but that's not even slightly limited to artists.

Imagine if John Lennon's dad had sent him down't pit. Or Dickens was a lawyer. Or Davinci a sane person.

People should be given the means to pursue their dreams but why shouldn't that be in the same way that business startups work? Dragons Den for sculpture, anyone?

Yup, but using your own point, John Lennon didn't end up down the pit, Dickens was a prolific author and Davinci was just plain awesome, and all of this happened without any interference from the state. So I don't see that you are making a valid point, if anything the state could have fucked up the formation of the Beatles as a government sanctioned quango decided who should be in the band and what music they should play, Dickens would possibly have been steered away from subversive writing which showed society in a damning light, and gawd knows what may have happened to Davinci.

If you think I was making a valid point, you haven't been here long enough

LOL

Indeed mate, indeed. If there's one thing any of us can be certain about anything in this life, it's surely that any State intervention - in any enterprise - is very likely to fuck it up.

In terms of Davpaz' comparison of "art startups" as compared to bona fide business start ups, it's not as though the taxpayer is required to stump up for the latter anyway, so the point is moot. No, the prospective businessman has to put his Business Plan together, do his market research and go out there to raise the money himself via the banks (usually signing away his house and/or other hard won assets as collateral; Heaven help him if he's one of the 9/10 who fail). I've no problem with would-be or existing artistes doing exactly the same thing by the way, as it's not public money that's then involved. (But of course, especially in the current climate, there is precisely zero chance of a bank stumping up funds to keep someone in clover/not having to earn any income on the promise of the production of a piece of art they can then sell).

In a perfect Utopia, it would be lovely if everyone could follow their dreams at a collective risk, indulge their every wish as to how they'd like to live their lives, spend their time, earn a living regardless of their own skill and/or the need of others prepared to pay, and be indemnified from failure. But as I explained to many years ago, the world ain't like that; there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, Father Christmas doesn't live on the North Pole and there's no such thing as a Money Tree. Hence, some 20 million+ of us in this country have to get up at 7.00am every weekday morning to jobs that most of us dislike or hate, spending the best years of our lives doing this stuff so that we can pay for roofs over our heads, put food on the table for our families, have a meagre 1-week holiday at some 3-star resort in the Med once a year and pay the taxes that keep those who can't (or won't) work off the streets, keep the streets safe, build and run the hospitals so that we all can have healthcare, educate the next generation and so on. If we all of us just decided, or had the option to chase butterflies and pipe dreams, our entire system of commerce, our collective way of life - indeed Society at large - would come crashing down around our ears. Tell me, who the fuck is going to trudge down to Burger King every weekday morning for a back-breaking, sweaty, smelly 10-hour shift, on minimum wage, if they could grab an easel and paint flowers, make an attempt at a novel/blog or string a few songs together - and get paid for doing just that, complete with a rent paid for place to live?

People who claim it is their 'right' to opt out, for whatever reason, whilst there are countless other poor bastards slaving away in really shitty, sweaty jobs like labouring on building sites, sitting in soul-crushing call centres, working in fast food restaurants or whatever - many of them having to pay income tax (and all of them national insurance & VAT on their hard paid for purchases etc.) - whilst they sit on their butts expecting such support from their hapless peers such as these? Man alive, such people really piss me off; almost as much as those who would support their 'right' to do so.

Dickens had to leave school and work in a factory after his father got sent to debtor's prison.

That's quite the Twist