3 ms·

For the same reason democratic states should fund news and education -- because it's in the public's interest to have these things. And because when you run a

by ethbr1 2y ago

For the same reason democratic states should fund news and education -- because it's in the public's interest to have these things. And because when you run a capitalist economy, things that aren't profitable... don't spontaneously spring into existence at scale. Unlike the travesty we made of rolling out social media, maybe we should think about what AI will cannibalize in the future, what we'd like to keep, and set up systems to financially support those things? Personally, I'd rather not live in a future where all music, art, and news is the same milquetoast pablum regurgitated by an LLM. But that means finding an economic model where not-that is feasible.

gruez 2y ago
>For the same reason democratic states should fund news and education -- because it's in the public's interest to have these things. Is it? What are we going to miss out on if art's purely commercial? The most visible art that the public sees is already commercial, whether it's music on spotify or movies in theaters. Hell, even most art that's in museums are commissions funded by wealthy patrons. If anything, government funded art is a recent phenomena, and we have gotten along just fine without it.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > What are we going to miss out on if art's purely commercial? Opinions that are commercially unpopular, and the larger and more diverse talent pool to generate art of all sorts. Patronage is a corrupting influence, and I'd feel much better about most art being funded through public grants (even via a baroque allocation system) than by Starbucks. Because it's funny, labor organization never seems to come up as a theme in Starbucks-sponsored art... > If anything, government funded art is a recent phenomena That's stretching the truth a bit, or are we not considering the Catholic Church or Medicis government? Or not recent? (to pull the most pop-culture examples, without delving into the actual royal courts/republics)
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    How would you prevent the government from similarly imposing a corrupting influence on artists? There are plenty of historical examples of art that opposed the government and likely played a part in changing public opinion. There's a pretty reasonable argument to be made that art plays an important role as a check on authority when needed.
    - danaris 2y ago
      You put the organization that funds it at arm's length from the actual government. Positions in it, all the way to the top, are regular jobs that get hired for, not political appointments. Write something into its charter about the funding never being conditional on content, only on some proof of ability. Make the amount of funding (for the organization as a whole) indexed to something meaningful—like inflation, or Congressional salaries, or something like that, with a multiplier based on national population—rather than having to be appropriated annually or at some fixed level. It's not perfect, and it can't be, because Congress can always decide they don't like what it's doing and go back and meddle. But there are many safeguards that can be put into place to reduce the amount of direct government interference with such an organization—and those above are just what I could come up with off the top of my head in a couple of minutes. Given a committee with an actual mandate to assemble something like this, and people who are genuinely interested in doing so, I'm sure a much more solid framework could be ironed out.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        Agreed. I don't think it's easy or that unchecked government funding is a panacea. But I do think it fills in a public need that the free market is blind to. And perhaps structurally incapable of addressing. (Bezos running a charity newspaper notwithstanding) The NIH / DOE / NSF grant process has its trend-following and insider problems, but generally parcels out money in an acceptable way. It's not impossible.

by ethbr1 2y ago

gruez 2y ago

>For the same reason democratic states should fund news and education -- because it's in the public's interest to have these things. Is it? What are we going to miss out on if art's purely commercial? The most visible art that the public sees is already commercial, whether it's music on spotify or movies in theaters. Hell, even most art that's in museums are commissions funded by wealthy patrons. If anything, government funded art is a recent phenomena, and we have gotten along just fine without it.

ethbr1 2y ago
> What are we going to miss out on if art's purely commercial? Opinions that are commercially unpopular, and the larger and more diverse talent pool to generate art of all sorts. Patronage is a corrupting influence, and I'd feel much better about most art being funded through public grants (even via a baroque allocation system) than by Starbucks. Because it's funny, labor organization never seems to come up as a theme in Starbucks-sponsored art... > If anything, government funded art is a recent phenomena That's stretching the truth a bit, or are we not considering the Catholic Church or Medicis government? Or not recent? (to pull the most pop-culture examples, without delving into the actual royal courts/republics)
- _heimdall 2y ago
  How would you prevent the government from similarly imposing a corrupting influence on artists? There are plenty of historical examples of art that opposed the government and likely played a part in changing public opinion. There's a pretty reasonable argument to be made that art plays an important role as a check on authority when needed.
  - danaris 2y ago
    You put the organization that funds it at arm's length from the actual government. Positions in it, all the way to the top, are regular jobs that get hired for, not political appointments. Write something into its charter about the funding never being conditional on content, only on some proof of ability. Make the amount of funding (for the organization as a whole) indexed to something meaningful—like inflation, or Congressional salaries, or something like that, with a multiplier based on national population—rather than having to be appropriated annually or at some fixed level. It's not perfect, and it can't be, because Congress can always decide they don't like what it's doing and go back and meddle. But there are many safeguards that can be put into place to reduce the amount of direct government interference with such an organization—and those above are just what I could come up with off the top of my head in a couple of minutes. Given a committee with an actual mandate to assemble something like this, and people who are genuinely interested in doing so, I'm sure a much more solid framework could be ironed out.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Agreed. I don't think it's easy or that unchecked government funding is a panacea. But I do think it fills in a public need that the free market is blind to. And perhaps structurally incapable of addressing. (Bezos running a charity newspaper notwithstanding) The NIH / DOE / NSF grant process has its trend-following and insider problems, but generally parcels out money in an acceptable way. It's not impossible.