4 ms·

Billions are spent on art. Every video game, movie, cartoon, anime, song, comic book, coffee table book, and even ad, is art. There is arguably no reason the go

Billions are spent on art. Every video game, movie, cartoon, anime, song, comic book, coffee table book, and even ad, is art. There is arguably no reason the government needs to fund art as it's already extremely well funded.

Forgeties79 5y ago
>it’s already extremely well funded Pretty sure no one in the arts agrees with this. As a filmmaker I know I certainly don’t. What makes you say that? I’m curious where this opinion comes from.
- quantumwannabe 5y ago
  You seem to think the arts is a bunch of connected people getting welfare to make terrible-to-mediocre art no one actually wants, and because that doesn't get obscene amounts of funding that the arts as a whole are underfunded. Movies, music, gaming, industrial design, advertising, architecture, publishing, and more are each individually billion dollar industries with an enormous amount of diversity in what is produced. Additionally, hobbyists can go easily semi-pro (or pro) nowadays thanks to websites like Amazon (books), YouTube (movies), SoundCloud (music), Etsy (design/physical art), and Patreon (other). The problem that you are describing is that people who make art that no one wants or people who suck at getting their art to people who like it are not rich. If you make something people like it is easier than any other time in history to make a living in art.
zeruch 5y ago
It isn't, and only someone who mostly consumes art but doesn't create it says otherwise. The possible exceptions being artists already regally compensated and upset they aren't making more (e.g. Don Henley) Take any city of cosmopolitan reputation, and take away their public arts programs and presence, and I guarantee in a generation, they will wither out, as the prestige/tourist status and even business status will decline. Take a city like San Jose where I live; smaller neighbors Oakland and SF have vibrant ecosystems between creatives and public works that fosters their reputations as places worth seeing. SJ has a small but active community that largely has to scrap for their own, such that its largely overlooked to the point that most of its best talent only gets known after it leaves for cities that will recognize them and provide tools an opptys for them (e.g. Cellista, Peanut Butter Wolf, etc). And even SF is pricing out creatives, such that many are booking for Oakland or out of state to continue. The arts are poorly funded, and in the few places they do better, tends to be in old bunkers where socialites can 'invest'/launder their money and get a surname placed on a building.
- pronlover723 5y ago
  Apparently you've defined "the arts" as things people don't want to pay for and hence you think the government should pay for them. I define the arts as things artist make. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+art+of+spiderman https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+art+of+spiderman https://www.amazon.com/Art-Matrix-Newmarket-Pictorial-Moviebook/dp/1557044058/ https://www.amazon.com/Art-Matrix-Newmarket-Pictorial-Movieb... https://www.amazon.com/Art-Ratatouille-Karen-Paik/dp/0811858340/ https://www.amazon.com/Art-Ratatouille-Karen-Paik/dp/0811858... https://www.amazon.com/Art-Sleeves-Album-Covers-Artists/dp/0847868877/ https://www.amazon.com/Art-Sleeves-Album-Covers-Artists/dp/0... https://www.amazon.com/Magazine-Power-Photography-Katherine-Bussard/dp/0300250886/ https://www.amazon.com/Magazine-Power-Photography-Katherine-... > only someone who mostly consumes art but doesn't create it says otherwise. I've created art that has collectively sold to 20-30 million people. Have several titles to my name and have hundreds of artist friends making $70k-$150k + royalties across various industries. I can look at the credits list of any movie or video game and see hundreds, sometimes thousands more. Also have friends doing patreon, etsy, and youtube making a living making art. "The Arts" are doing just fine.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > I define the arts as things artist make. And "artist" as "anyone who manages to sell some shit that doesn't fit into any other category", judging from your links? Your reasoning feels just as wrong as the GP's.
  - zeruch 5y ago
    ""The Arts" are doing just fine. " No, you are doing fine. You are not the entirety of the space, but thanks for playing.
thelock85 5y ago
I always thought art was for creation’s sake not capitalism (though it could be both). And I believe unbridled creativity is the bleeding edge of innovation. Under a pure profit motive, the whole of art will converge around the best ROI, and spaces for new ways of expressing and perceiving will become narrow. Sure it’s easier than ever to create and disseminate art, but also harder than ever to find art that isn’t streamed or commodified down your throat. If for no other reason, some kind of non-corporate funding is needed so that new artistic outputs can generate a signal amongst mass produced art. Maybe that’s not the govt, but it sure ain’t MassMediaPublisherProducerCorp.
- pronlover723 5y ago
  Many (most?) celebrated works of art were for $$$$. Go into any museum of classical art, it's almost all art that was made because someone paid the artist to make it.

Forgeties79 5y ago

>it’s already extremely well funded Pretty sure no one in the arts agrees with this. As a filmmaker I know I certainly don’t. What makes you say that? I’m curious where this opinion comes from.

quantumwannabe 5y ago
You seem to think the arts is a bunch of connected people getting welfare to make terrible-to-mediocre art no one actually wants, and because that doesn't get obscene amounts of funding that the arts as a whole are underfunded. Movies, music, gaming, industrial design, advertising, architecture, publishing, and more are each individually billion dollar industries with an enormous amount of diversity in what is produced. Additionally, hobbyists can go easily semi-pro (or pro) nowadays thanks to websites like Amazon (books), YouTube (movies), SoundCloud (music), Etsy (design/physical art), and Patreon (other). The problem that you are describing is that people who make art that no one wants or people who suck at getting their art to people who like it are not rich. If you make something people like it is easier than any other time in history to make a living in art.

zeruch 5y ago

It isn't, and only someone who mostly consumes art but doesn't create it says otherwise. The possible exceptions being artists already regally compensated and upset they aren't making more (e.g. Don Henley) Take any city of cosmopolitan reputation, and take away their public arts programs and presence, and I guarantee in a generation, they will wither out, as the prestige/tourist status and even business status will decline. Take a city like San Jose where I live; smaller neighbors Oakland and SF have vibrant ecosystems between creatives and public works that fosters their reputations as places worth seeing. SJ has a small but active community that largely has to scrap for their own, such that its largely overlooked to the point that most of its best talent only gets known after it leaves for cities that will recognize them and provide tools an opptys for them (e.g. Cellista, Peanut Butter Wolf, etc). And even SF is pricing out creatives, such that many are booking for Oakland or out of state to continue. The arts are poorly funded, and in the few places they do better, tends to be in old bunkers where socialites can 'invest'/launder their money and get a surname placed on a building.

pronlover723 5y ago
Apparently you've defined "the arts" as things people don't want to pay for and hence you think the government should pay for them. I define the arts as things artist make. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+art+of+spiderman https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+art+of+spiderman https://www.amazon.com/Art-Matrix-Newmarket-Pictorial-Moviebook/dp/1557044058/ https://www.amazon.com/Art-Matrix-Newmarket-Pictorial-Movieb... https://www.amazon.com/Art-Ratatouille-Karen-Paik/dp/0811858340/ https://www.amazon.com/Art-Ratatouille-Karen-Paik/dp/0811858... https://www.amazon.com/Art-Sleeves-Album-Covers-Artists/dp/0847868877/ https://www.amazon.com/Art-Sleeves-Album-Covers-Artists/dp/0... https://www.amazon.com/Magazine-Power-Photography-Katherine-Bussard/dp/0300250886/ https://www.amazon.com/Magazine-Power-Photography-Katherine-... > only someone who mostly consumes art but doesn't create it says otherwise. I've created art that has collectively sold to 20-30 million people. Have several titles to my name and have hundreds of artist friends making $70k-$150k + royalties across various industries. I can look at the credits list of any movie or video game and see hundreds, sometimes thousands more. Also have friends doing patreon, etsy, and youtube making a living making art. "The Arts" are doing just fine.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > I define the arts as things artist make. And "artist" as "anyone who manages to sell some shit that doesn't fit into any other category", judging from your links? Your reasoning feels just as wrong as the GP's.
- zeruch 5y ago
  ""The Arts" are doing just fine. " No, you are doing fine. You are not the entirety of the space, but thanks for playing.

thelock85 5y ago

I always thought art was for creation’s sake not capitalism (though it could be both). And I believe unbridled creativity is the bleeding edge of innovation. Under a pure profit motive, the whole of art will converge around the best ROI, and spaces for new ways of expressing and perceiving will become narrow. Sure it’s easier than ever to create and disseminate art, but also harder than ever to find art that isn’t streamed or commodified down your throat. If for no other reason, some kind of non-corporate funding is needed so that new artistic outputs can generate a signal amongst mass produced art. Maybe that’s not the govt, but it sure ain’t MassMediaPublisherProducerCorp.

pronlover723 5y ago
Many (most?) celebrated works of art were for $$$$. Go into any museum of classical art, it's almost all art that was made because someone paid the artist to make it.