[lelanthran]

> Art and cultural heritage may have worth outside that represented by short-term supply and demand?

Or it may not. We can't tell objectively, because there is no metric to measure.

I suppose my point is, if you cannot tell that there is a benefit at all, why leap to the assumption that it's a large enough benefit to pay 25m euros for.

[toyg]

Because not of bread alone you shalt live. You can't get to the moon without moonshots. There is a queue of people willing to fund for-profit moonshots, but when it comes to art and other non-monetizable human endeavours, in practice there is only the State.

[telxosser]

What great works of art have ever come from the State?

If anything, we need the ultra rich to fund this kind of thing based on their taste. That worked well in the past with the court musician/composer and patronage.

There are so many problems with this UBI idea. The medium is one that comes to mind. We have largely moved on from paint on canvas to video the way we moved on from sculpture in stone to paint on canvas.

Does the artist have the artistic freedom to start a youtube channel with the money? I would suspect not.

Most likely this goes to propping up outdated mediums of expression and will lack the complete freedom needed for a true artist to really express themselves.

Then of course you have to contend with those gaming the system to free roll by collecting old toilets from the trash to work on their homage to Duchamp masterpiece.

I suspect there is reason for the starving artist archetype.

[danivaz]

art is monetizable

[neoromantique]

Hardly.

In its current form art market is looking more like tax break/deductibles market.