Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bell-cot 121 days ago
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.
1 comments
mantas 121 days ago
That is a problem too. Offensive art is art too. I'd even argue that offensive art in many cases is better than non-offensive one. But yes, I guess at best „politically correct offensive“ artists will get approved.
link
bell-cot 121 days ago
A problem for ideological purists, and an opportunity for performative offenders.

Ordinary folks understand the whole "he who pays the piper" thing, and that "democracy" means the voters can choose to support the arts...or not.

link
mantas 120 days ago
It brings another problem that this may become sort of hush money government-at-the-time friendly artists.

Here it's already a problem for culture-ministry-financed projects. When some artists get funding, others don't... And then some people cry foul that it's because they crossed ways with some politician. Wether that's true or not, when arts funding and politics go together, it's a recipe for some sour FB posts.

link
bell-cot 120 days ago
Yes, and Ireland is not famed for its "all one big happy family" politics. That might be one of their reasons for drawing 2,000 winners at random from 8,000 applicants.

But in a democracy, gov't-selected art has a failure mode more fundamental than mere political bias - the voters may decide they're paying too much for really crappy "art". That's what killed the public art program in the city I live in. In hindsight, the city's Art Committee was dominated by cutting-edge academics, big-ego art snobs, and well-intended persuadables.

Though the fountain they built in front of City Hall - abstract, drearily convoluted, generally ugly, horribly expensive, and usually broken - could be seen as appropriate and spot-on symbolic political art.

link