4 ms·

Is there evidence the UK has a better arts scene, by any measure, than the US?

jwagenet 4y ago
I’ve always felt the UK has an outsize contribution to music, especially in modern electronic/dance music, compared to the US.
- TylerE 4y ago
  Arguably at least 3/5 of the greatest rock and roll hands of all time were British (Pick any of: Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Queen, Pink Floyd, Tne Clash…) A very large percentage of the musicians in those bands were graduates of the “Art Schools” of the time, which were like STEM schools, just, well, art.
  - dboreham 4y ago
    Except Queen, where three of the members have real degrees. <ducks>
    - TylerE 4y ago
      The arts schools were more like high school/trade school hybrids.
  - jwagenet 4y ago
    Yes absolutely. In my mind, the US has had a robust rock and pop history, but name an artist pre 2000 and a good chance they are from the UK. The US slays now with hip hop and r&b, but the UK has their own unique scenes like grime, which aren’t big in the states.
yusefnapora 4y ago
How would you even measure that? Art is inherently subjective, and the “arts scene” even more so.
miguelazo 4y ago
The more important question is how many people are unable to survive as artists in the US, and how much work is compromised just to make ends meet. This is also something that afflicts journalism to a very high degree in the US. Hence why certain topics are untouchable for US corporate media.
- version_five 4y ago
  > The more important question is Says you. We're talking about public money being spent. I certainly don't agree that maximizing the number of people who can survive as artists is a good public policy goal. And I interpret "compromised" here to be producing something people want. That's vital, it's not a downside.
  - staticman2 4y ago
    Fortunately providing healthcare to the public has public policy benefits besides maximizing the number of people who can survive as artists. It causes the population to have higher life expectancy, for one thing. This is much easier to measure than who has the best artists.
    - version_five 4y ago
      Why are you posting that in reply to a thread about how healthcare encourages artists?
      - staticman2 4y ago
        Because you brought up public funding. This National Health Service is not a government program designed to promote the arts, so the issue of whether it "helps artists" is orthogonal to whether it is a good use of public funds.
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    That's just one of many, many examples, which I chose because the thread was already about artists. I also mentioned journalism, which you completely ignored.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JohnBooty 4y ago
I don't know how we'd quantify that in any objective way. Subjectively, it has 1/5 the population of the US and its influence is rather large. But really, what's the counterargument here? We're not sure if it's good for artists to have healthcare? I'm not sure the quality of the "arts scene" is the right question to ask.

I’ve always felt the UK has an outsize contribution to music, especially in modern electronic/dance music, compared to the US.

TylerE 4y ago
Arguably at least 3/5 of the greatest rock and roll hands of all time were British (Pick any of: Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Queen, Pink Floyd, Tne Clash…) A very large percentage of the musicians in those bands were graduates of the “Art Schools” of the time, which were like STEM schools, just, well, art.
- dboreham 4y ago
  Except Queen, where three of the members have real degrees. <ducks>
  - TylerE 4y ago
    The arts schools were more like high school/trade school hybrids.
- jwagenet 4y ago
  Yes absolutely. In my mind, the US has had a robust rock and pop history, but name an artist pre 2000 and a good chance they are from the UK. The US slays now with hip hop and r&b, but the UK has their own unique scenes like grime, which aren’t big in the states.

yusefnapora 4y ago

How would you even measure that? Art is inherently subjective, and the “arts scene” even more so.

miguelazo 4y ago

The more important question is how many people are unable to survive as artists in the US, and how much work is compromised just to make ends meet. This is also something that afflicts journalism to a very high degree in the US. Hence why certain topics are untouchable for US corporate media.

version_five 4y ago
> The more important question is Says you. We're talking about public money being spent. I certainly don't agree that maximizing the number of people who can survive as artists is a good public policy goal. And I interpret "compromised" here to be producing something people want. That's vital, it's not a downside.
- staticman2 4y ago
  Fortunately providing healthcare to the public has public policy benefits besides maximizing the number of people who can survive as artists. It causes the population to have higher life expectancy, for one thing. This is much easier to measure than who has the best artists.
  - version_five 4y ago
    Why are you posting that in reply to a thread about how healthcare encourages artists?
    - staticman2 4y ago
      Because you brought up public funding. This National Health Service is not a government program designed to promote the arts, so the issue of whether it "helps artists" is orthogonal to whether it is a good use of public funds.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  That's just one of many, many examples, which I chose because the thread was already about artists. I also mentioned journalism, which you completely ignored.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

JohnBooty 4y ago

I don't know how we'd quantify that in any objective way. Subjectively, it has 1/5 the population of the US and its influence is rather large. But really, what's the counterargument here? We're not sure if it's good for artists to have healthcare? I'm not sure the quality of the "arts scene" is the right question to ask.