/lit/ - Literature

Because a lot of arts need support from the state to be successful at all. Here in the UK with have the BFI or film council who have funded films like the King's Speech and so forth which have gone on to make tons of money and needed government backing to exist.

Furthermore, like sports, art and culture can help reduce crime or aspects of poverty as it allows people to put all their efforts and talents into something creative. Arts and media have also shown to generate a lot of money so it is good for the economy.

Yes, priority is for police and fire services etc. but no one is asking for an either/or decision. If we could only choose one everyone would choose the essential services, but no harm in putting money into arts and sports as well.

you are an idiot, OP.

>>3505167
Go throw some pasta on your head, call it performance and demand government support, bein "an artist".

>>3505156
I fully support your notion OP. I don't see why taxmoney should support culture at all.

Your friend got upset because your opinion partially threatens his livelihood.

Fuck off drongo, /lit/ isn't the place for you.

pic related for you to fill out

>>3505172
As if that is happening, when you are old enough to understand it, come back and apologize for being incapable of understanding the basic need for Culture Funding.

"Without culture, and the relative freedom it implies, society, even when perfect, is but a jungle. This is why any authentic creation is a gift to the future." Albert Camus.

"Men are not suffering from the lack of good literature, good art, good theatre, good music, but from that which has made it impossible for these to become manifest. In short, they are suffering from the silent shameful conspiracy (the more shameful since it is unacknowledged) which has bound them together as enemies of art and artists." Henry Miller

>>3505156
>Culture will always be there
HOW DO I INTO POST-COLONIALISM

>>3505156
>Why the hell should government support culture?
Don't tell me more. Are you American, right?

>>3505179
>Instead of explaining the basic need of culture funding i'll yell and throw a quote at him, that'll show them!

>>3505156
Because culture makes better people. Better people are better citizens. Better citizens are a better society. And a better society is what tax money should be used for.

You are welcome.

>>3505201
OP here. I happen to be a citizen of ex.East-bloc coutntry, where people declaring themselves "poets" and "writers" actually live off government support.

This upsets me.

The problem with this discussion is the assumption that the status quo should in some way lend itself to logical justification and/or emotional agreement. That is simply not the case for the vast majority of the arrangements under which we live, and arguing any specific point just seems futile to me. I have this weird condition where everyone else seems to have a perfectly normal working apparatus that somehow lets them separate individual issues and problems from everything else and discuss them in earnest, but I have no such ability and I am immediately aware of the fundamental impossibility of finding any non-partisan solution to anything, and I don't care enough to push my personal agenda, or even really have an agenda for that matter.

>>3505208
But the market does not know what's good on the long run.

It's the sum of information of what is generally needed now.

What now is considered worthless tomorrow might be considered inestimable.

Culture is a long term investment and the state intervenes because it is such a long term investment that few people have the vision to do it now, because humans are not rational people and over-estimate the now for the detriment of the future.

>>3505205
Those logical loops

>Why should government decide what is good culture
>Why should only some projects get funded
>What is culture
>New culture funding or old culture funding?
>What is art?

In Sweden where I live, an artist called Anna Odell, received state funding for playing mentally ill and suicidal to throw herself off a bridge until she got arrested by a police and admitted in a hospital. Shortly after she revealed that she had faked it all and used the resources of the hospital and police to create "art", in order to show the patriarch power structures in mental care. And after she got attention from media , she also added that the project was meant to show power strucutres in law and journalism.

The state shouldn't support a further saturation of hack art.

Modern art despises any form of culture and wishes to destroy the beauty of art. Where through art we once gave ourself meaning, through modern art we wish to destroy that meaning.

>>3505216
Here is another example.
A band receives funding for going on tour from the local municipality, even though there are other much more well known bands, or up and coming bands in need of the funding? Why -- a band member dated the daughter of an important figure in the cultural council.

>>3505216
OP here.

The solution to these "loops" is no funding at all. And I think mrs. Odell should recieve a hefty fine. If she is ready to take the heat, she may "perform" whatever she likes.

>>3505164
Second.

HAY L/I/T CAN GOVERNMENT FUNDING OR MONEY BE LTERATURR???!!!111

>>3505216
Exactly this.

What has decades worth of the averaged person being encouraged to "express themselves" given us? The Vagina Monologues? Artists' shit? What would our world be without those?

The people who create such art will never understand hardship and limitations as most great artist have.

>>3505232
It becomes a game of rather knowing the right persons and the socializing in the right circles instead of create good art.

>>3505205
>Because culture makes better people.

Ghetto culture sure doesn't.

At least define what you mean by 'culture' instead of assuming high arts and the like. And once you define your 'culture' which aspects is which 'deserve' more attention than others?

Inevitably there would be a ranking system of priority.

>>3505164
>Furthermore, like sports, art and culture can help reduce crime or aspects of poverty as it allows people to put all their efforts and talents into something creative. Arts and media have also shown to generate a lot of money so it is good for the economy.

/thread

>>3505216

>Why should government decide what is good culture

You don't make the government decide. The government sets up funds which then are allocated by a commission formed by a group of recognized experts with different backgrounds.
Why should they be able to decide?
Because people that have spent their time studying an art form and have been recognized as knowledgeable are our best bet in deciding what is of value and what is not. Again best bet, because making anyone else decide (even the market) is worse.

>Why should only some projects get funded?

Because money is limited.

>What is culture

Culture is the set of discourses in all mediums.

>New culture funding or old culture funding?

From each according to its possibilities to each according to its needs.
What I mean is; if you are like Italy which has a lot of old culture and very little new culture, your choice is already made.

>What is art?

Art is a discourse in a particular medium in relationship to a tradition with the end of understanding and provoking an aesthetic experience (however one defines it, most artists give their own definition)


I don't see anything wrong with what Anna Odell did. At best the state can ask an accurate description of how the artist is going to spend the funding before allocating them.

>>3505240
>I don't see anything wrong with what Anna Odell did

She wasted tax payers money in a stupid way.

What she was doing was in no way analogous to what psychiatrists did in the mid century infiltrating mental wards to prove how awful conditions were.

>>3505218
The fault is not of modern art.

Modern art is a mirror of democratic individualism.
What kind of beauty and meaning can art reflect when our society is geared against community and its goal is only profit making?

Talking about beauty and meaning today would just be kitsch. It was possible in pre-modern communities but today is just naived.

>>3505228
>Look mom I posted it again!

>>3505246

Well I have not seen the art and being my expertise in music and literature I'm not sure I would be able to judge it properly.

But there are two points:

1) This is something that calls for a reformation of how funds are allocated, not the abolition of funding.

2) Just because you don't like/understand something it does not mean its bad. I see a lot of people that have beef with the art world because it does not give them what they want while at the same time they have absolutely no understand of the medium or the work. This should be avoided because art should not be made in bite sized for mediocrity.

>>3505243
>>Furthermore, like sports, art and culture can help reduce crime or aspects of poverty as it allows people to put all their efforts and talents into something creative.

You really think would be criminals are the ones who would take advantage of government financed art, and even so create good art that would generate revenue? Also, WHY should we give the lowest common denomonator such a privlege in the first place?

Your claim is nothing but speculation yet everyone in the thread treats it like an undeniable truth.

>>3505259
>Just because you don't like/understand something it does not mean its bad.

Taking the Anna Odell example, it's clearly wrong. Using and wasting other ressources is really a problem. Who paid the officiers that "helped" her? Who paid the cost of her internement? In my country, you can already get a severe fine for making a false emergency call. This woman could even get some weeks in prison. Maybe.

Seriously, you do not see nothing wrong in wasting the time of police and the hospital? Do you think we currently have enough officers and room in hosptial to afford playing with them and doing experiments?

>>3505259
Are you really going to go that fucking "hurr durr art is subjective" route, as if anyone here thinks otherwise.

The problem is that taxpayers are forced to pay millions of dollars on art that they find distasteful, therefore providing a lower quality of life for most.

I agree with OP. Art should only be funded by community system like "my major compagny". Government should not choose what kind of art we have to fund.

>>3505272
OP here.

Actually percentages are very small in comparison to health care or defence spending. But principle remains.

>>3505267
1) Again, the solution is simple; make the money conditional to a proposed project. If the project is problematic it would not get approved and no money would be given.

2) The costs are minimal. The police is paid anyway and the costs of the internment is not excessively high when financed by the state (on vast level).

3) If your problem is imitation, again we have laws. Fine her or imprison her. But at least you should realize that this puts another ideological problem on the line: the state is not in the business of promoting freedom, the state is in the business of promoting interests. What follows is the question "whose interests?"

5) Even if you did need more police and hospital rooms (which I doubt knowing how well your health system works and how low your crime rates are) you are trying to blame the faults of the system of a person. It is certain not because of Anna that you would have a poor health system, and it's not by not funding the arts that you would get a better health system. If you want to find who is guilty of the lack of funding for the policeman and the health system look at society in general and the political system.
You are just looking for an easy scapegoat.

>>3505272
No I actually claimed the opposite: art is objective, that's why most people fail to understand it.

>The problem is that taxpayers are forced to pay millions of dollars on art that they find distasteful, therefore providing a lower quality of life for most.

Taxpayers are not an authority on art. It doesn't matter if it pleases them. Thinking that taxpayers should like the art they fund it's like thinking that the patient should like the medicine they are prescribed.

Taxpayers are uneducated beasts and don't know what's good for them.

>>3505156

>Why the hell should government support culture?
Because it makes the lives of citizens more interesting.

But is it art?

The government shouldn't fund culture. The public should fund culture themselves and choose what survives and what doesn't. I don't care if this shitty band wont be able to tour if they don't get special culture dole money. There are thousands of shitty bands out there and all they do it make it harder to find the 1-2 actually talented people that are creating beautiful new and exciting music.

>>3505292
Please look at what your average art school graduate produces and tell me that you don't find it distasteful. Such beasts ARE the ones creating the art. There are times when the lowest common denominator and the elite can share a common disdain for the status quo.

>>3505292
>Thinking that taxpayers should like the art they fund

tfw your government now owes the best part of £50,000 for each employed person, yet local councils still collectively spend well over a million a month on flowers.

They even spend £200,000 a year on flower arrangements just for Whitehall.

tfw flowers have destroyed the economy.

>>3505313
The average art school graduate is a hack.
The best art school graduate are pretty good.

Giving money to average art school graduate it's a pity. But not giving money to the talented young artist is also guilty.

Nietzsche said that human stupidity is trying to correct one extreme with the opposite extreme.

If you don't agree with your art funding you can ask to reform the procedure through which money is allocated.

I can give you a few lines which would improve it:

1) Build an international commission of the best professors in the field. International so that it has no interests with the government. Make it varies so that it includes not only professors dedicated to performance art but also medievalists and experts of ancient art and so on.

2) Ask the artist to make a detailed proposal of the piece of art to be approved before receiving funding.

3) Ask the artist to make a detail list of the expenses he is going to incur and make the funding relative to this request (if he needs $300 you don't give him $3000). After the art work is done ask for proof of the spending and ask back anything that was not spent legitimately.

4) Pretend that any work of art should not be unlawful.

There you go. Problems solved.

>>3505318
That's just silly.
Probably flowers are supporting the local economy.
If the local government stops buying flowers many families would bankrupt which would make the whole town much poorer.

>>3505311
What does the public know about culture?
If you had to get treatment would you allow a doctor to chose it or would you ask the public?

>>3505336
So the government is justified in spending millions of taxpayer money to prop up florists, when they could be spending it on healthcare and education instead?

>>3505265
>You really think would be criminals are the ones who would take advantage of government financed art

Yes

>and even so create good art that would generate revenue?

Sometimes, but that's not much the point

>Also, WHY should we give the lowest common denomonator such a privlege in the first place?

Why should it be a privilege in the first place?

>Your claim is nothing but speculation

And your claims are...? Are you really hoping to see more than speculation on 4chan?

The government needs to commission art, not just give money to artists. Someone once wrote that architecture is the physiognomy of a society, and I think art works the same way. Doesn't it follow that as Americans see their government through things like TV alone, more and more they're going to see it as a shadowy organization operating at a distance? Note that the best periods in art (if we can say 'best') were during periods when the state aggressively used art for its own purposes (e.g. the Popes in the Renaissance).

I'm not a statist or anything, the state could just be doing a better job, is all.

>>3505347
No they are not.
But stop buying flowers would just more bad than good. Think of a family that lives on that and has children. If it bankrupts maybe those kids won't be able to afford college thus you lose the opportunity of having specialized workers that would have payed high taxes in the future (if you manage to retain them, and certainly having nice streets and low crime rates is a way you retain midlle-high class professionals).

What you have to do is to slowly reconvert the economy. Slowly decrease the flower expense, and make laws that would make it easier to change your business (probably through tax cuts) to more profitable endeavors.

>>3505156
>Why the hell should government support culture?

- There is no CORRECT way to spend taxpayers money, just as there is no correct political system. You overlay your own subjective view of prioritization or how society should be run over the top. You are both right.

- There are various alternatives such as taking businesses out of the hands of incompetent bureaucrats and into the free market.

- If you have taxation, you could always argue for proportional representation - the public gets to vote on how their tax money is spent.

>>3505290
>If the project is problematic it would not get approved and no money would be given.

But what if it's not what citizens like? Why should I pay for something I hate?

>The costs are minimal
That's your justification? The costs are really high, it's not because it's partly assumed by the state that it's suddenly cheap as fuck.

>Even if you did need more police and hospital rooms (which I doubt knowing how well your health system works and how low your crime rates are) you are trying to blame the faults of the system of a person. It is certain not because of Anna that you would have a poor health system, and it's not by not funding the arts that you would get a better health system. If you want to find who is guilty of the lack of funding for the policeman and the health system look at society in general and the political system.
You are just looking for an easy scapegoat.

The fact is still she got paid to get an hospital room while someone else surely would have needed. It's an example, but it's a whole category of "artists" that got paid sometimes to do that kind of things. You're saying "look at society in general and the political system" but discussing the funding of arts is precisely a political matter, so you're a bit contradicting. And I'm from France, a country with one of the best healthcare in the world, there's still a huge lot of problems.

Please don't focus on this example.

>>3505341

> What does the public know about culture?
> 2013, being this stupid

The public create and endorse culture. Nothing survives culturally without public support. Even the books that you read which you think no one has heard of and make your superior to everyone else because you know about them/read them only survived in time due to backing from some part of the public

>>3505341
He's the one who's concerned. And the comparison with a doctor is completely ridiculous. If everybody find a painting awful, they wouldn't pay for it. Even if it's in fact a wonderful one.

>>3505374

You are conflating the meaning of "public" (i.e. people that read a book for example) with the meaning of general public (i.e. the majority of the people).

Most of the books I read got here because they were read by specialized and trained people which always were a minority in society.

>Without the state meddling in culture, it cannot exist

>The state produces an objectively superior culture than markets

>>3505382
>>3505382

>If everybody find a painting awful, they wouldn't pay for it. Even if it's in fact a wonderful one.

>>3505374
I don't think he means this. He means that the extent of a text's popularity should not justify its support. Otherwise all the funding would go to footballers' autobiographies (Britfag here,) which the masses lap up but are of little creative or reflective value. The state should support the art itself in the face of crass stupidity which the free market encourages so it can make big profits on tripe which takes a fraction of the effort to produce.

This.

I'm so glad the Ministry of Music exists to come up with the Doors, Pink Floyd, Lou Reed and Radiohead. There is no way the MoM could turn into a Simon Cowell production line of lowest-common-denominator chart hits.

I'm also thankful that the Ministry of Art came up with Jackson Pollock, John Constable and Claude Monet. There is no way individuals can do anything like that in a free market.

Please, big government, you know what the public likes better than they do. Come and take their free choice.

>>3505396
Thank you reasonable anon.

>>3505396
>>3505396

>Art is objectively "bad" or "stupid"

>Art shouldn't be judged by the public, because the public is bad

>The state protects people from themselves

Stop that

>>3505396
>Otherwise all the funding would go to footballers' autobiographies

Best seller list:
#1. Lionel Messi: My story
#2. Cheryl Cole: My story.
#3. Wayne Rooney: My story.
#4. Ashley Cole: Life with Cheryl
#5. Ant and Dec: Our story
#6. Cristiano Ronaldo: My story
#7. Richard Hammond: My story
#8. Lionel Messi: My story
#9. Alan Carr: My story
#10. Robbie Savage: My story.

>>3505401
So are you saying something like One Direction is of the same value as Tristan and Isolde by Wagner?

I'm surprised that someone on /lit/ would argue that art is not worth supporting. If you're going for a basic economic argument then look at the Nordic countries, culturally they punch massively above their weight for their size because the state had policies of supporting musicians and artists.

I think countries should just have proper welfare so that people can choose to not work and not starve. The artists can go on the dole with the other bums, they don't need special treatment. If they feel like they're too good for this they should fuck of, if you're not willing to live in poverty for your art you should quit.

>>3505409
>>3505409

>I'm surprised that someone on /lit/ would argue that art is not worth supporting.

No, you twat. Art ought to be supported consensually.

>If you're going for a basic economic argument then look at the Nordic countries, culturally they punch massively above their weight for their size because the state had policies of supporting musicians and artists.

Since causality is so easy to track in social systems. Good job, sport.

>>3505406
That would actually be an improvement.

>>3505396
>The state should support the art itself in the face of crass stupidity which the free market encourages so it can make big profits on tripe which takes a fraction of the effort to produce.

The free market doesn't encourage stupidity. It just lets people do/and buy what they want. If people want to buy footballers autobiographies then good for them. If you want to feel superior to them because you read some shit no one has heard of then good for you.

If the obscure book you're reading is really that good and 10,000 people buy it then that author may be sustained to write another one. It's natural selection. But if his book only sells 500 copies, then so be it, he'll have to find another job. The government shouldn't artificially support him. Just like the government shouldn't artificially support a new species that likes to run off cliff edges at the expense of the whole ecosystem. Natural selection should prevail even if that means your shitty obscure book goes out of print.

>>3505411
i can't believe there are people who think like this. You have to be european.

>>3505458
I agree with her/him and I'm European. Maybe you are thinking of different levels of proper welfare, here in Germany the concept is normally discussed as a basic income without conditions of 700€ per month. In the case studies that have been made, there was a surprisingly positive result, but I don't remember the specifics.

>>3505458
Yep. Feels good to live in social liberal utopia. Make art not war faget.

>>3505458
this is a completely normal idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

>>3505507
This is a much better idea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

>>3505441
Yes but because it manages the information of what is requested now it does not take of account what will be need.

The market prefers the now to the long term vision. But societies are built on long term investment not immediate consumption.

>>3505520
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
too many possible loopholes for assholes to exploit
just give everyone the fucking money

>>3505541
>just give everyone the fucking money
What money? Everyone is sat at home, masturbating and injecting heroin in to their eyeballs. Who's making all the food, clothes, and sleek electronic devices to keep the currency circulating

Didn't read thread (no time).

Though you have a nice argument, the problem is in the way the economy works as a whole. As you said so yourself "artsts whose work no one is buying" shouldn't get support, but it is much more complicated than that and as the economy grows and reshapes itself all the time, art must follow it or it will stay behind. It's a situation in which you either help or you are helping it being destroyed. I don't like that, not one bit, but it is still how it goes.

While we may complain of this artificiality, that is, something that is not following the nature of the artists drives, the public, the market, we could also aim this complaint to all other aspects of society.

Art is, in a way, an act of rebellion and of resistance, it goes about saying what you need, rather than hearing what you want, and to think of it strictly in terms of where you inject or not inject money kind of beats its point. The issue however is that society is made to work as a clock, functional, efficient, with art as mere decoration, as something you fund just to relieve people enough so to get them back to work. This is a modern thing in which you are not only obliged to function well and do what you must, but that you should like it as well.

In the end, I think this is much less about on whether art should be funded or not, but what role it plays on society. Actually, much worse: that it has to "play a role".Like everything.

But make no mistake: stop funding it and it's gone.

>>3505544
actually, studies have shown that such subsidies encourages people to engage in more productive economic activity as they don't just need to always scramble to get by
i don't know why you think people will be more productive if uncomfortable
we're not talking heroin money here, just enough to have some breathing room
even if it was heroin-level money, that you automatically think people will choose to do nothing when they get the choice is strange. people "do nothing"/bad heroiny things to escape the shitty something they are forced to deal with for no good reason

>yanks thinking subsistence level welfare benefits are a bad thing
That colonial barbarity.

>>3505520
Y'know, people often link this; but, I get the feeling they never actually read the article.

From 1968 to 1979, the largest negative income tax social experiments in the US were undertaken. The first experiment was the New Jersey Income Maintenance Experiment, proposed by MIT Economics graduate student Heather Ross in 1967 in a proposal to the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity.[7] The four experiments were in:[8]

The New Jersey Income Maintenance Experiment: Trenton, Passaic, Paterson, and Jersey City, New Jersey with Scranton, Pennsylvania added to increase the number of white families, 1968–1972 (1375 families)[9]
The Rural Income Maintenance ExperimentRural areas in Iowa and North Carolina, 1969–1973 (809 families)
Gary, Indiana, 1971–1974 (1800 families)
Seattle and Denver, 1971–1982 (4800 families)

>In general they found that workers would decrease labor supply (employment) by two to four weeks per year because of the guarantee of income equal to the poverty threshold.[10]

>>3505551
>>3505524

Sensible posts. Art holds a lens up to the society and its values, a civilised culture should allow it to flourish and not be afraid of what it turns up. I am a skeptical romantic, I have no illusions that good art will lead us to a paradigm shift but it is an important part of the conversation regarding what we are. This is a conversation that the the free market does not want us to have as its answer: a consumer, is fragile, unsustainable and meaningless on cursory examination.

But I do agree, the question of which art to support is a difficult one. I am personally all for a Citizens Guaranteed Income of £10k a year to allow us to engage in creative projects if we wish to but I imagine this idea will be shot to pieces by the Randians on here.

>>3505551
>But make no mistake: stop funding it and it's gone.

This has got to be the largest fucking lie ever told.

Do you think human creativity and creation vanishes because of state money?

>>3505675
You want my point of view? Without state's money, we should even get rid of pseudo-artists who do not really put themselves into their art. I'm 100% pro.

>>3505675
Not what I mean, it's not about creativity and creation. My entire post was to speak of that artificial interdependence. I'm saying that not to inject money is not a passive approach, for there are other pressures that are already there and that crush these creative activities to sub-existence on a social level. I don't think the state should interfere with art, I think that the other games they play are indeed crushing the art world already and their funding of art is much to keep it alive. This is not, in any sense, about the individual, or "human creativity".

>>3505156
>Why the hell should government support culture?

better than funding armies and paying politician's salaries

>>3505783
>no army ekwalz wolld peazz you

>>3505351
>Why should it be a privilege in the first place?

It's not a matter of it 'should' being a privilege but that it 'would' turn into one what with 'positive discrimination' and the fact that if culture is supposed to enlighten the masses, culture schemes would almost inevitably be targeted to these poor criminal sods in the first place.

It reminds me of that ridiculous system we had back in school where the complete dumbassed dickheads did something entirely normal - like do their work as they were supposed to - and they'd be praised to high heaven and back, given special favours and rewards, meanwhile the decent hard working people who weren't troublemakers in the first place get jack shit for doing the same thing AND not being complete classroom dicks in the first place.

>>3505290
>make the money conditional to a proposed project. If the project is problematic

Who decides?

>The costs are minimal.

Doesn't make it any less of concern of money being wasted.

>What follows is the question "whose interests?"

So you think the problem is 'imitation'? This isn't the black market you know. Imitation in art is a signifier that the world has become stale - you can't exactly ban that and doing so would hardly change the state of things to a second Renaissance. People need liberty to be creative.

>you are trying to blame the faults of the system of a person.

No - she used intentionally dishonest 'tactics' to do something criminal, and then in hindsight which we have no way of verifying she turns around and says 'lol just art guys! - gib monies, look how selfless and noble I was!'

If she suspected a problem there are more honest and better ways of raising the issue instead of going through a convoluted process, wasting tax payers money, and the systems time. Her project was not art in the first place and should not be considered art. Do we consider 'welfare reform' art? The suffragette movement 'art'? Of course not.

>>3505292
>Taxpayers are uneducated beasts and don't know what's good for them.

Getting a bit dangerous there - next you may as well say we should throw the whole 'democracy' shebang out of the window and get rid of elections - after all the average taxpayer knows jackshit about politics, economics, healthcare, social issues etc.

>>3505341
>What does the public know about culture?

The public creates the culture.

Using medicine and doctors as an analogy was a poor choice.

>>3505808
yes yes yes

>>3505551
>But make no mistake: stop funding it and it's gone.

Yeah - all the great artists, and novelists of the past sure were encouraged by the prospect of getting goernment money to help. How many of these artists lived and died in relative poverty yet persevered? How many novelists whose works sold paltry amounts yet are now major cult classics today? How many great movies considered 'flops' at the time but now are revered as art?

Great art is born not at the whim of government funding. Great art may not be popular at the time when it is created. This does not mean that its position and respect will change at a later point in time though.

>>3505830
Most great artists are moochers and bums of some sort. Welfare is just a modern variant of that. If you think living on welfare isn't a life of poverty and austerity then you haven't been on welfare.

>>3505846
Excuse me, I see now that you were probably referring to artist specific money grants. That's shit.

>>3505808
Well, it's hard to construct the opposite argument (that they know about politics, economics, healthcare, etc.) If they did know about those things, why elect representatives to sort them out for them?

>>3505846
Total lie.

>>3505853
Depends on one's taste, I guess. Working people are usually too tired and jaded to have creative thoughts. There's a reason culture flourishes where people can outsource everyday drudgery to slaves/plebs etc.

>>3505830
Erm...I'm sorry, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I meant. I don't know how you are able to read that from the context of this talk.

Great art definitely is not born at the whim of government funding, nor any other funding. Even when it is funded.

Don't look into the past. I'm talking about a modern "knot". It has to do with industry, with media, with connectivity, not with Dostoevsky, Pessoa or Kafka. There is no "industry of geniuses", even though they try hard to sell it as if they were.

But there are other "industries" which suffocate artistic and creative scenarios. What I'm saying is that there is a false idea surrounding creativity, regarding housewives decorating boxes, "motivation", industrial writers and so on that may, on a parallel, support studios, museums and editors in which great art can break through. And I really mean "break through".

I do not support state funding, I think it's a solution for a problem that naturally emerged and that it is perpetuated by these attitudes. It's a matter that, let's say, take the fundings out of culture, and give it to police enforcement or whatever won't solve, because you give rights to all else to step on art and the reaction to it would be even more hypocrite than what we already have. The whole thing is fucked up and I don't think this is an isolated problem.

>>3506104
>Great art definitely is not born at the whim of government funding, nor any other funding. Even when it is funded.

What about the Sistine Chapel frescoes?

>>3505884
How many jobs have you held in your life?

>>3506104 here

Just to make it clear. I think it's a matter of way of seeing it.

I went to a "party" of writers in my town just to see how it was and I was surprised at how mediocre and silly all of them were. The entire time, all the debates, all the talks, it was all about "we have to motivate more people to read!" "the city must support culture!" "we writers must stay together and demand more space!". There was this fair a few months back with cheap books and all. To incentivate people to go, they called bands and there were plays for kids all the time. Well of course, the sales were still low and people just went for the bands. They paid for free book tickets and distributed them in public schools. A huge load of it was not even used. A friend of mine who is a teacher got all the spare tickets from her students who didn't buy anything, went on the last day of the fair, got a bunch of books and put them in her school's library. Her boss was mad at that, though they kept her and the books. It was ilegal, but she had to do it. Bad management all around.

What I mean is this: the artists, writers, producers, editors, they should worry with one thing only: make good things. Stop whining about government funding. And meanwhile the government should really be open to fund these projects, not to just throw money at it, but to make it possible.

>>3505164
>what is good the the economy is ultimately good for the people

>>3506159

Government funding for literacy makes sense though. Obviously we don't have to subsidize authors but I don't see anything wrong with maintaining good libraries and encouraging people to read.

>>3506121
Two. Got fired within a month from the first, left the second after two weeks. Most wasted six weeks of my life, never again. Jobs are just tiresome endeavours that get in the way of any worthwhile activity.

>>3506170
The only problem is that (I can speak only locally on this), they are encouraging people to read, but the books just suck. Kids are not interested, so this reading is meaningless. Because the books themselves were financed by the government, they are agenda things on ecology, fairy tales dumbed down, always with a clear artificial message attached. This, for kids.

They are not really encouraging it, because they do not give a scenario that promotes, in itself, inquiry, thought, curiosity, creativity, boldness, whatever. So they compensate later. That is, they throw these kids into this numbing functionalistic premise and then they give money for them to buy books that are just boring to them (naturally). I see it very often that the result ends up to be the opposite, they avoid reading it, because that's what they know for reading it, a teacher telling you that this or that books are "must reads". We don't want to do what we must, we want do to what we want. And the whole thing with education, market, culture, government fundings and so on work only in "musts", even when disguised with "wants".

>>3506174
I understand you, jobs are too edgy for me too. I prefer to jack off on 4chan and pretend I'm smart and cultured.

>>3506228
I'm actually smart and cultured because I have 40 hours a week more than most to engage with my interests. Probably even more than 40 if you take commuting, fatigue, stress and distraction into account.

I have nothing against people working though, don't get me wrong. I'm glad a lot of people obviously like it. It's just not for me.

>>3506251
>implying you actually use those 40 hours

You are a dead beat and will never amount to nothing, simply because you will never realize that becoming successful derives from hard fucking work and not being a "talent"

>>3506258
>projecting

>>3506251
Completely bullshit. You probably do fucking nothing of your days excepting jerking, browsing and sleeping. You surely don't spend that time on studying (what people who work in academics DO), besides the fact working is probably the sole valid purpose of life.

DIDN'T YOU LISTENED TO KILL BILL?

70% of jobs are entirely worthless to society

>>3506258
>You are a dead beat and will never amount to nothing
Easy there, Billy Bob. I don't really plan on amounting to anything though, joke's on you.

>>3506258
>simply because you will never realize that becoming successful derives from hard fucking work and not being a "talent"
What kind of success would that be? I already have everything I need.

>>3506274
>let me tell you how you live your life
>muh sad protestant work ethic

>>3506287
I'll bet you don't have SEX

>>3506276
>70% of jobs are entirely worthless to society
[citation needed]

>>3506309

not really. how many people do you know irl who hold jobs that arent ENTIRELY superfluous to the development of mankind?

Taxes sometimes go toward correcting market failures. Learn2economics, mr 'mah tax dollarz'.

>>3506298
>muh sad protestant work ethic

Yeah I guess your shit stain morals are ten time bettes

>>3506335
I really can't think of a single person.

>>3506341
if you mean, to covering rich people's asses, then yeah

>>3506349
What do you mean?

>>3506299
So that's what your toil amounts to? Lure bitches towards your dick? Lel.

>>3506344
Simply being happy is better than feeling obliged to work in order to allow yourself to lessen the guilt enough to be happy, yes.

>>3505156

>>3505164
>Because a lot of arts need support from the state to be successful at all.

Using the the government as an excuse for success inhibits the arts to be a critical voice. This probably natural coming from a society full of people incapable of NOT sucking the dick of the next guy up on the social ladder.

Support and sponsoring are different things. Taxes shouldn't be spent on sponsoring the arts, that will only encourage and stricken the arts to become propaganda. However taxes should be spent in support of protecting the arts. Money going into the security of making art gives more power to the arts to be useful by its expressions--in other words it makes sure the conversation of art keeps going while not tainting it.

I rather be in a world with shitty art than art that is ALWAYS in support of the status quo.

>>3506409
I think we should have more propaganda. Better than the ads we have now.

>>3506415

Propaganda = Ads

You're living the dream right now. Why are you complaining?

>>3506435
What do you mean?

>>3505208
>ex.East-bloc coutntry
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? The East coast?

Lots of people label themselves as stupid shit, man. I know someone who did a couple of charcoal drawings in college and labels themselves an 'artist'. Anyway, if you're making money off your art, then you should be assisted. If not, then it's a hobby.

>>3506453
W-what? This just has to be a troll?

>>3506461
Oh, it's in Europe. Whatever. The point stands that people label themselves romantically and live off government support regardless of location.

>>3506446

Ads = Propaganda
Propaganda = Ads

Both are equivalent. Both are interchangeable. Both are basically uncritical expressions on an instructive message.

>>3506469
I just don't see your point.

>>3506469
I take it that you haven't studied even the basics of Advertising?

Also, don't use word ads, use advertising. Advertising > Ads, Literature > Books

Because society needs to support artists while they create.

I'm okay with supporting a class of ''non-productive'' artists (they may not produce ''real labour'' but they produce culture) because their absence would bring a terrifying cultural wasteland, à là Soviet Union.

>>3506453
>>ex.East-bloc coutntry
>What the fuck is that supposed to mean? The East coast?

no reaction imagine will do.jpeg

Rich culture grounds the soul and makes the people highly resistant to the influences of social decay.

>>3505164
>art and culture can help reduce crime
if only hitler was accepted in that art uni or whatever

>>3506415
WW2 propaganda is far more enticing than the news speak we are subjected to today. I personally wouldn't mind having my brain pumped full of nationalistic poison if it had legitimate aesthetic value.

>>3506529
I just meant that we can use the power of propaganda/ads in order to do good.

>>3506477

I take it you're into 'marketing'. I also take it you live in a mental bubble absent of any social critic or meaningful axiology.

The connotations of Ads and Advertisements are different. One is to pander, coerce, and trick; the other is to solicit a product or service.

I take it you don't know shit about other people doing anything to get your money, attention, or choice? Must be nice.

>>3506504

or maybe a terrifying cultural wasteland a la the united states of america? no need to go for the historical example when the contemporary one is much more relevant.