8 ms·

lol, if they succeeded it would be revolutionary. We can put that formula in a fitness function for AI and don't need artists anymore. Seriously: Who comes up

lol, if they succeeded it would be revolutionary. We can put that formula in a fitness function for AI and don't need artists anymore. Seriously: Who comes up with that? We finance culture because it needs to avoid the markets not to become a dull product. At best they will aim at some mainstream, not at all supporting any advances in art.

jakub_h 10y ago
We totally can! We'll just ask the output be at least 8 out of 10. The output being...uh, the average of grades from our ten resident artists. ;)
gaius 10y ago
Right, but what do artists want? Grants, funding, cold hard cash in other words. It's unreasonable to ask people to put their hands in their pockets and give you their hard-earned money if you can't explain exactly what you're going to do with it. That way lies Tracy Emin putting her unmade bed on display, or whatshisname and his pickled sheep - laughing all the way to the bank.
- anotheryou 10y ago
  As most, they take what they can get. Most funding however is not profit oriented. Often it is paying the material, offering a residency (not payed rent anywhere you want) or small financial aid because it's still very hard to make a living as an artist (unless you play/serve the art-market well). Most any of these grants have a jury, the better ones actually have a small jury and more often than not the influence of a single jury is even enhanced by having some kind of weak positive veto. If a single member of the jury thinks someone is really worth it, than it is made highly likely that he gets funded. This is because democracy makes no sense here, you want to select a few good people for the jury, who then judge the best they can. This system is still crooked, because most juries have bad taste, are forced to select something likeable or scared to take risks, but in every application artists write exactly what they will do with that money. edit: I'm tempted to say a good basic income would be a solution, but in e.g. a movie production most of the jobs are not the nice creative ones, so art-house stuff would still need external funding to exist.
- Fricken 10y ago
  Emin's unmade bed and the pickled sheep were both impactful, memorable works of art. They were successful. I mean, just that you referenced them off the top of your head and I know what you're on about is proof of that.
  - gaius 10y ago
    They were memorable only for the media coverage of the controversy that other people's money was spent on them. This is lottery money, not taxpayer's, but that finite pot of money has plenty of other, legitimate, causes it could be funding.
    - Fricken 10y ago
      I've been to the first world. I noticed while there that they spend the majority of their time and effort in pursuit of activities that hardly be classified as basic needs. I've noticed that beyond basic needs, what can be classified as a 'legitimate cause' gets pretty subjective pretty fast. There is even the curious phenomenon of the 'starving artist', a class of individuals who willingly compromise basic necessities in pursuit of things at the highest order of Maslow's heirarchy of needs. Though few of them are actually starving, really it just means they can't afford luxury goods commonly found amongst even the lower classes.

jakub_h 10y ago

We totally can! We'll just ask the output be at least 8 out of 10. The output being...uh, the average of grades from our ten resident artists. ;)

gaius 10y ago

Right, but what do artists want? Grants, funding, cold hard cash in other words. It's unreasonable to ask people to put their hands in their pockets and give you their hard-earned money if you can't explain exactly what you're going to do with it. That way lies Tracy Emin putting her unmade bed on display, or whatshisname and his pickled sheep - laughing all the way to the bank.

anotheryou 10y ago
As most, they take what they can get. Most funding however is not profit oriented. Often it is paying the material, offering a residency (not payed rent anywhere you want) or small financial aid because it's still very hard to make a living as an artist (unless you play/serve the art-market well). Most any of these grants have a jury, the better ones actually have a small jury and more often than not the influence of a single jury is even enhanced by having some kind of weak positive veto. If a single member of the jury thinks someone is really worth it, than it is made highly likely that he gets funded. This is because democracy makes no sense here, you want to select a few good people for the jury, who then judge the best they can. This system is still crooked, because most juries have bad taste, are forced to select something likeable or scared to take risks, but in every application artists write exactly what they will do with that money. edit: I'm tempted to say a good basic income would be a solution, but in e.g. a movie production most of the jobs are not the nice creative ones, so art-house stuff would still need external funding to exist.
Fricken 10y ago
Emin's unmade bed and the pickled sheep were both impactful, memorable works of art. They were successful. I mean, just that you referenced them off the top of your head and I know what you're on about is proof of that.
- gaius 10y ago
  They were memorable only for the media coverage of the controversy that other people's money was spent on them. This is lottery money, not taxpayer's, but that finite pot of money has plenty of other, legitimate, causes it could be funding.
  - Fricken 10y ago
    I've been to the first world. I noticed while there that they spend the majority of their time and effort in pursuit of activities that hardly be classified as basic needs. I've noticed that beyond basic needs, what can be classified as a 'legitimate cause' gets pretty subjective pretty fast. There is even the curious phenomenon of the 'starving artist', a class of individuals who willingly compromise basic necessities in pursuit of things at the highest order of Maslow's heirarchy of needs. Though few of them are actually starving, really it just means they can't afford luxury goods commonly found amongst even the lower classes.