[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

It's not clear to me how you can say that in good faith.

There are just too many instances of artists who died destitute only to be considered one of the greats many years after the fact.

And the ones that didn't were bankrolled by a wealthy individual.

thirdly, many artists draw things they don't really want to because that thing sells better than what they enjoy drawing. It's optimizing for a different thing than what the other poster is claiming should be optimized for.

[ImprobableTruth]

Because what other good measure is there?

You mention great artists who died destitute - but we consider them great because they are posthumously popular. We can't look into the future to see what stands the test of time, so current popularity and commercial success seem like the best proxies.

>thirdly, many artists draw things they don't really want to because that thing sells better than what they enjoy drawing. It's optimizing for a different thing than what the other poster is claiming should be optimized for.

Since the proposal isn't about UBI in general, why should we care about artists in particular? Many (most?) people work jobs where they do things they don't really want to because it's more useful to others than what they'd actually like to do.

[danaris]

We place a great cultural value on art.

Bear in mind that "art" is not just "paintings and poems". Novels are art. Movies and television shows are art. Music (of all types) is art. Games, indeed, are art.

Basically anything that you might turn to for entertainment and aesthetic pleasure is art, and as humans we need it in our lives—both consuming and, in a great many cases, creating.

But many forms of art have always been commercially non-viable. Many if not most of the best-known painters and sculptors from times past fell into one of two categories: those who had wealthy patrons, and those who died destitute.

Why should we say that only those artists whose work meets some arbitrary standard of commercial success are allowed to create art without spending most of their waking hours doing something else, or else having to constantly worry whether they'll be able to live to see another year?

[ImprobableTruth]

Because we don't live in a world with UBI, so we have to decide how to allocate finite resources. The alternative to using some arbitrary standard of commercial success is some other arbitrary standard (unless you introduce UBI).

If we want to optimize for enrichment of people's lives through art, "how many people are willing to pay for it" seems like the best proxy we have. Not to mention that people with some financial success will be less costly to subsidize.

Like, if I had to choose between subsidizing two musicians projected to make half of living wage and a single musician earning nothing, to me that's a pretty obvious choice. The musician earning nothing might be a true visionary who will be recognized in the future, but the odds are far more likely that the music they produce just doesn't hold much appeal.

Now, commercial success is of course not a perfect measure for "enrichment", but, again, what's the alternative? Currently it's some government body deciding, though this holds the quite elitist assumption that the taste of the art establishment is better.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

There's a common complaint you'll see about google.

They hired the brightest minds of our generation ... to work on ads rather than the betterment of humanity.

You're saying artists should optimize for money, the other poster is saying they should optimize for fulfillment.

The output you get from one vs the other is vastly different because the underlying incentives are vastly different.

> Because what other good measure is there?

Why does there need to _be_ a good measure?

Do we have a good measure for sex? is it length of time, size of organs, number of orgasms, how deeply the participants care about each other?

Why can't something just simply be?

[ImprobableTruth]

Unless you go for UBI, art subsidies will be finite. You need a measure to decide who gets subsidized and who doesn't. We're not talking about people doing art as a hobby after all, but about the government paying people to make art.

I'm not saying artists should optimize for money but financial sustainability. It seems like a good target because it indicates popularity and means you need less subsidies. You don't need to make _all_ the money or even break even, but if nobody is interested in paying you, the odds are good that you're not enriching many peoples lives.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

financial stability is a different word for money.

no one is saying the government needs to specifically pay for art, the original discussion was about how to determine the worth of art. You think money is the right proxy, the other poster thinks fulfillment is the right proxy.

yes the other poster was hinting at UBI and using artists as a proxy for people being able to work on what they find interesting. you strawmanned that into an argument that governments are being asked to specifically pay for art.

[ImprobableTruth]

The first post - which I responded to - is _explicitly_ about the government paying people to do art:

> Games in this day and age ideally need generous government subsidy to be successful.

> something like an artist's living wage provided by the government is a necessity to produce good independent video games

> but the funding really needs to come from an entity that is largely divorced from the [financial] "success" of the game.