[WalterBright]

> there should always be a space for government-funded programming and art

Government funded art doesn't make it pure art, it makes it art that serves the political aims of the bureaucrats charged with doling out the money.

[campbellmorgan]

Absolutely. But I for one would rather live in a world that had the diversity of both private and state-funded art, each with their own biases. Surely that's better than the single influence of the market?

[WalterBright]

Consider the explosion of music that's available. AFAIK, none of it is funded by the government, yet there's music for every conceivable taste.

Almost no two people have the same taste in art, and what they're willing to pay for.

I doubt you'd be living in a world that doesn't have art you like if the government didn't fund it.

[dagw]

AFAIK, none of it is funded by the government

Virtually all governments all over the world have various arts funding schemes that covers music.

That being said I have no strong opinion either way on if that's a good thing or if the music funded this wouldn't have been funded some other way if those schemes hadn't existed

[WalterBright]

I know the local concert hall gets some funding from the government for performances. I don't think it funds composers.

[dagw]

I don't think it funds composers.

What country are you in? Definitely if you're in the US or Europe there are plenty of places you can apply for government funding if you're a composer.

Also if the government is funding the concert hall and that funding lets the concert hall put on work by and pay a composer, at what point does it stop being government funding?

[WalterBright]

Just out of curiosity, can you name a CD produced in the US by a composer paid by the government to compose?

> at what point does it stop being government funding?

It's a good question, and I replied to that in another comment.

[berkmayer]

You can see you are asking people to fund art that bureaucrats support or go to jail, right?

[dagw]

Government funded art doesn't make it pure art

Sure, but it's no less pure than art funded by a private benefactor or patron.

[WalterBright]

What percentage of the CDs you own were government funded? (Or MP3's on your player.)

[pjc50]

You'd be surprised. There's a reason there's a band called UB40. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/dole-queue-blues-that-gav...

(not "government funded" in the grant sense, but the old UK unemployment benefit worked a lot more like a basic income)

[WalterBright]

I wouldn't call that government funding of art. They were not given money in exchange for producing art. They were just given money.

[dagw]

I haven't got the slightest clue, nor do I care.

And more importantly what do you mean by funded? If the local council offer free or subsidized rehearsal space to local up and coming bands, is the album they created there "government funded"?

[WalterBright]

I'd say no. But some people would say that the road the band used to drive around was government funded, therefore their music is. I don't agree with them.

I'd say government funding is when the government pays money to a specific artist to produce art. Like when a record company decides to pay a band to produce an album, or a publisher decides to give an advance to an author to write a book.

[SyneRyder]

Australian here - I just discovered today that our current right/conservative government has a program where artists can receive a $15,000 grant to record their album [1], and the left/progressive opposition has pledged to double the number of grant recipients if elected [2]. I can't say I've heard of any of the 2017 grant recipients.

[1] http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/news/media-centre/media-r...

[2] https://www.theindustryobserver.com.au/labor-promises-28m-fo...

[dagw]

Don't know about the US, but in the EU I know there are grants you can apply for to help cover the cost of recording an album.