[bell-cot]

> and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?

There are far more than 2,000 real, paying jobs for schoolteachers. And for grocery clerks. And for nurses. And for fire fighters. And for drivers of rubbish lorries. And for ...

Not so much for the folks who hope to be the next James Joyce or Louis le Brocquy.

[sam_lowry_]

I hope to be the next Rothshild, give me a trillion!

[AlexandrB]

Many people who work as schoolteachers, grocery clerks, etc. at one point might have had ambition to be the next James Joyce.

[jl6]

Joyce did work as a schoolteacher. Maybe he would have written better books if he hadn’t had to do this.

[lucketone]

Equally possible that those books would have been worse.

[mantas]

Those can go and do normal jobs like grocery clerks. While doing their art in free time. Like many famous artists were doing.

[bell-cot]

With the modest size of the monthly checks, most of them may need to do that anyway.

But the obvious point is to help "artists" in Ireland. It's pretty normal for small nations to want to cultivate / protect / subsidize their arts / culture / language / whatever. The Irish gov't isn't trumpeting this program because they think it'll annoy Irish voters.

[mantas]

I’m all for encouraging people to create art.

But I think people who benefit from this won’t be artists. But people who are good at making money off artsy projects.

I’d see much more value in investing in supply and demand. First, provide free studios with arts supplies, music instruments and so on. Next, force government agencies to hire local artists. Make municipalities have live music for local events and hire local musicians. Make gov agencies buy local art for decorations etc.

[bell-cot]

> ...I think people who benefit...

325 Euros/week sounds like basic rent & food & transportation. Not artsy projects with enough spare Euros for someone to skim serious money off from.

Providing "free" studios, supplies, instruments, etc. sounds like a scheme to give politicians more photo ops and bureaucrats more jobs. Why can't the artists just source exactly what they think they need from existing supply chains?

[mantas]

> 325 Euros/week sounds like basic rent & food & transportation. Not artsy projects with enough spare Euros for someone to skim serious money off from.

Exactly. But it's a nice addition for „project-conscious“ crowd who can add one more income stream.

> Providing "free" studios, supplies, instruments, etc. sounds like a scheme to give politicians more photo ops and bureaucrats more jobs

Some libraries here started providing free studios with some basic instruments. I hear it was a hit with long wait times. It's awesome for artsy people who want to get together and jam with friends on saturday morning. Artsy people neighbours also love it that they don't have to hear said jams too :)

It's also great for kids who want to give it a shot. It's easier to come in and find some instruments than try to get some used stuff just to play.

I'm all for enabling people to do artsy stuff en-masse. The more people give it a shot, the better. Results don't matter, playing and creating something (no matter how crappy) is important.

IMO „mass-playing-with-art“ has much better ROI than handouts to let a selected crop of people pretend they're living off their art.

[bell-cot]

Yes, supporting en-masse stuff is important. Artsy or not - playgrounds, parks, football pitches, and other things count. Or spaces for civic choral groups and painting clubs, repairing old church organs, ...

For the arts, free studios & such are both en-masse support, and a wider part of the talent funnel (vs. basic incomes).

Biggest problem that I see with basic incomes is in selecting who gets those. The article notes they'll pick randomly from 8,000 applicants - but there's judgement and selection somewhere. Otherwise, the scheme would implode politically after giving money to folks whose "art" was offensive graffiti, or appreciating expensive whiskey, or whatever.

[TheOtherHobbes]

It's about 60% of the Irish minimum wage. So more of a nice gesture than a generous handout or a true attempt at UBI.

[extraduder_ire]

There is no requirement that it be the entirety of someone's income.

The normal welfare and employment system still applies to recipients, which is one of the more notable things about it.

[metalman]

artists dont do "normal" and generaly experience reality from a particular, and personal point of view, and grocerie store managers and young artists will almost certainly have mutualy antagonistic points of view. artists thrive in random spontainious environments, but forget about food, so we give them money, that they give to normal grocery store clerks, and we all forgo the seething frustration that would result from your suggestion.

[mantas]

What I see among artist friends, they have no problems holding a job. But their art is not exactly „bill-paying“. It's not bad, it's just not commercializable mainstream. At best it covers their expenses for studios, equipment and so on.

For that crowd, money for 3 years is not really interesting. It would ruin their existing (smaller or bigger) non-artsy careers. But their art, without significant mainstream changes, has no chance to cover a living. Even after focusing on it for 3 years.

I don't see a point to give such crowd a free ride either. They're fully capable society members. I don't see a difference between such artist getting a free ride vs me getting free money to ride my bicycle because I'd maybe do some cool shit if I had more time. Or maybe I should get a handout to do some opensource? Code is also art anyway.