3 ms·
The arts (TV, movies, music, and related fields such as tourism, architecture, design, advertising) are massive industries in the United States. Then of course
by jrumbut 6y ago
The arts (TV, movies, music, and related fields such as tourism, architecture, design, advertising) are massive industries in the United States. Then of course there are the soft power benefits of having much of the world grow up staring at America at the movies, singing along to American music, wearing blue jeans, etc. Same goes for many other developed economies.
I admit I am someone who appreciates art for its own sake, but after years spent eroding the post-WW2 edge
in science and manufacturing, creative endeavors are part of what sustains us materially as well as the intangible ways.
You need a bunch of artists for one Breaking Bad, the same way you need many startups for one Facebook or many scientists for one Einstein.
- diebeforei485 6y agoThe fact that a relatively small percentage of worldwide artists have a large chunk of the worldwide audience only furthers my point: mass arts are by definition based on popularity, so we can only have so many artists. But my point still stands: How many of these artists got art degrees? Rihanna didn't, Kanye dropped out early, Billie Eilish and Taylor Swift didn't go to college. Michael Jackson didn't go to college. They do have support staff and some of them may have gone to art school, but there are plenty more folks with art degrees who are struggling. There are better ways to support the arts than to fund arts degrees. UBI is one example.
- namdnay 6y agoNot that I’m arguing against you, but it is interesting to point out that a lot of the music performed by Rihanna and the likes is written composed and produced by people from Sweden, which has a great music education system