4 ms·
If something becomes a thing in bureaucrats world then it also means it opens a door for receiving funding. Then your family member or friend create a foundatio
by varispeed 6y ago
If something becomes a thing in bureaucrats world then it also means it opens a door for receiving funding. Then your family member or friend create a foundation or something and then apply for those funds. Maybe they ran out of things and figured out there was something called demoscene. They don't do it out of good will. At least not in my opinion based on experience.
- feralimal 6y agoAnd funding is the stealing of money (taxes) from individuals, being re-allocated to things bureaucrats like to foster. Hurrah!
- lallysingh 6y agoThere's a good chance the funding will come from charities. Most likely ones funded by people who made money in computers.
- feralimal 6y agoNah! They're too busy using their charities to fund the guardian, NYT and WHO.
- piva00 6y agoBecause the market is perfect and will foster the most beautiful arts efficiently, right? There is some requirement for coordination in a societal level, taking taxes to fund what bureaucrats like to foster is imperfect but so far looks like the better alternative than just letting private and profit-driven interests drive what's culture or not. What's your alternative?
- dleslie 6y agoSome of the best and most innovative art I've seen was developed wholly by public funding. I can't imagine how it is in the USA, where art lives and dies by how marketable it is. It occurs to me that the (newer) experimental art I have seen from America was developed by wealthy people with loads of free time; the era of wandering jazz and blues musicians having long since passed.
- kortilla 6y ago> the era of wandering jazz and blues musicians having long since passed. That era wasn’t government funded either. What’s your point?
- dleslie 6y agoIt's over. It was done by wandering poor people and there's no longer a strong market demand for it.
- nyolfen 6y agoyou are not paying attention if you think that the US has some kind of dearth of musicians and artists. the internet has made it easier than ever to create a profile and cultivate an audience.
- dleslie 6y agoHow many of those artists are earning a living at it, and are not engaging in that production in their leisure time as relatively wealthy people? Moreover, if I haven't heard of it, then the signal isn't stronger than the noise. It's not particularly _interesting_.
- nyolfen 6y agonone of the artists i know have made a living at it, and yet it has stopped precisely none of them. they are not wealthy people. do poor nations lack artists? this entire line of thinking is completely divorced from reality. just because the municipal government doesn't pay for as many murals or whatever does not mean artists cease to work.
- dleslie 6y agoThey are wealthy enough to have the leisure time to produce art with instruments of non-trivial expense. Moreover, they aren't going to be producing art which requires a full time effort if they cannot feedthemselves doing so.
- chmod775 6y agoI never understood how people can have views this simplistic. I understand when views lack some nuance, but this is absolutely puzzling to me.
- kortilla 6y agoAfter you watch your taxes used to fuel wars and murder and there is no way to opt out or meaningfully vote for anything different, this is a completely rational view to take. Just because the theft is by a group elected by a majority doesn’t make it not theft. You can wax on as much as you want about the importance of government revenue, safety nets, and defense, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the fact that the source is currently money taken by force from the people.