4 ms·

With Kickstarter, Who Needs the National Endowment for the Arts?

22 points by jalanco 14y ago

jalanco 14y ago
From the article: In 2012, Kickstarter has provided over $150 million in arts funding, more than the NEA.
- bhb916 14y ago
  The best part of that is that every drop of that kickstarter money was voluntary. That is to say that the donors gave their money up willfully without the application of compulsive force. The same cannot be said about the NEA. Regardless, the article hints at the primary problem with the replacement suggestion: this would effectively replace the current, centralized, political decision making with a distributed form of decision making. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
luriel 14y ago
I will make a slightly more controversial claim: With Kickstarter, who needs government granted monopolies for the arts? (ie., copyright) One should realize that most of the greatest artworks in history were created without the "benefits" of copyright (and in many cases would have required infringing on copyright, writers and painters have borrowed from each others works all through history).
- TylerE 14y ago
  I don't think you can argue that at all. Until very recently (on an historical time scale), mechanical copying wasn't possible at all, so copyright isn't some new thing, practically, it's just that in ye olde days it wasn't a relevant concept because you couldn't copy art - there were no CDs or records, lithography, etc. If you wanted to hear a Beethoven symphony, you had to find an orchestra that was playing, and travel to see it. Even duplicating printed work was much more work, since the type would have to be reset by hand. While the funding model was certainly different, the era was much more different. Using the romantic era or earlier as proof that (in modern society) culture could flourish without copyright is ludicrous.
  - ef4 14y ago
    Your distinction is an important one, but I think it amounts to the same effect in the end. Back then, you couldn't make money by selling many copies of your art because making copies was too difficult. Now, you can't make money by selling copies of your art because making copies is too easy. But in both cases, the effect on the artist is the same: he cannot sell many copies, so he must find other ways. Like concerts and patronage.
  - jonhendry 14y ago
    Cervantes had to deal with a ripoff of Don Quixote while he was writing the second part of Don Quixote, after publishing part I. It even makes up part of the plot of part II. Another author published what they claimed to be part II. It's a different form of IP infringement than simple unauthorized duplication of a work, but it's been around for a long time.
    - luriel 14y ago
      Shakespeare and many others also "stole" from many other authors, both classic and contemporaries. Art, by its own nature, tends to infringe so called "intellectual property" rules.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
greggman 14y ago
I'm sure this will get down voted but why, in the last 30 years, have we needed the National Endowment for the Arts at all? Art is massively funded. The Motion Picture Arts, The Musical Arts, The Art of Literature, The Art of Architecture, The Popular Arts (as San Diego calls comics and graphic novels), The Video Game Arts Kickstarter will help fund more art. That's great. I doubt it will get rid of NEA. The NEA is about funding things nobody wants. If people wanted them they'd already fund them directly.
- cdcarter 14y ago
  Note that you didn't discuss the fine arts, the one category that actually is heavily funded through grants and sponsors. Free and cheap access to the masters work is about education.
- tfinniga 14y ago
  > The NEA is about funding things nobody wants. That's an interesting perspective. I see it more as a tragedy of the commons situation. It's possible to make important and influential art which is not commercially viable. NEA is great for funding art that wouldn't look good on a T-Shirt, but is beneficial to the culture as a whole.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    Is it? The majority of art created today isn't founded because it doesn't look good on a T-shirt. It is because it is crap. And you art doesn't have to fit on a T-shirt to be founded. Stories could be printed in beautiful books, movies and documentaries made available as high quality downloads, paintings as posters, etc. The only art you couldn't found this way would be art that didn't say anything to anybody. §100/year from 10 thousand people is a pretty good wage. If you can't get 10 thousand people to see something in you art, then it is properly because your art is crap.
    - xorbyte 14y ago
      Is it? You equate financial viability with artistic value. But, there was Vincent van Gogh; large swaths of what we consider art today was commissioned by kings and popes and presidents on their dime, not sold or traded; it is virtually impossible, in the Kickstarter model, to fundraise sculptures and installations. I certainly don't think art needs an erudite committee approving it for 'value' (in a non-financial sense), but neither does it need to be subjected to the tyranny of the majority, lest we want to limit ourselves to bazaar kitsch dolls and whatever else can be easily mass-made and sold. So while Kickstarter can certainly replace entities like NEA for many artists (many projects seem easier, logistically, to fund through KS) I don't know this says NEA is no longer needed.
skilesare 14y ago
National funding is for things that can't get done by themselves. If kickstarter works for you, you don't need NEA there are plenty of valuable art undertakings that do not have public appeal. that is what the NEA should be doing.
- noonespecial 14y ago
  I don't mean this as snark. When it comes to art, if nobody wants it, why is it valuable?
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    Some aspect of the national zeitgeist wants an egalitarian approach to elitism? Since "elite" artists that only appeal to the very few are seldom market winners, we (politically) recognize they are the "little guy" and desire to given them a hand against the torrent of the commercial art market. I admit, it all sounds so strange; we tell ourselves that just because we don't admire their product, the problem must be with us, and we can overcome our unworthiness by public support. Or maybe they just have good lobbyists?
  - czr80 14y ago
    Same reason basic research is mostly funded by the state - there are things that are valuable to a society that no one individual will pay for.
    - cobrausn 14y ago
      Other than the claim that perhaps radical or unpopular art might inspire further art creation or bring joy to a small group who desire this kind of art, which I suppose has some value, what value does NEA funded art have to society as a whole? I certainly don't know anyone who benefits from it, which makes it nothing at all like research.
  - newobj 14y ago
    You should have just gone with the snark, it would have made your comment less dumbfounding.
kmfrk 14y ago
Could we please cite some facts in this mounting tirade against public funding of the Arts?
- daniel_solano 14y ago
  To what extent are facts necessary? Public funding of the arts is in a large part a philosophical issue. Either you believe that it should be done or you don't. That's primarily a question of what you think the role of government should be. It's only if you agree that public funding of art is a good thing that then facts can come into play. What is the best, most effective way of doing it?
  - lallysingh 14y ago
    The criteria the NEA uses for funding work is unusually absent from this discussion. And the comparative question, are differences in the results between kickstarter and the NEA significant? If so, are the NEA's results valuable?
cdcarter 14y ago
The NEA is a grant-maker. Kickstarter is a platform for a capital campaign. These are two incredibly different types of "unearned income." I have never seen an organization have a successful annual campaign through something like Kickstarter. Kickstarter itself makes it very clear it is to be used for capital campaigns with very specific purposes. Take a look at the 2012 NEA grants and think about how many of them would thrive on Kickstarter. The BSO for example, the Tanglewood grant miiiight be able to be funded but the general grant almost certainly would not. These arts organizations are modeled around an in person annual campaign through their development offices, and large-scale grants from charitable foundations (or the NEA). The entire model would break down if all funding came direct from patrons. Whether or not that model should be broken down and disrupted is a different story, but almost none of the arts organizations that are receiving MAJOR grants from the NEA are set (or may ever be set) to deal with it.
abrown28 14y ago
The only problem I have with the NEA is I'm being forced to pay for something I don't want. I don't care if you make a painting of the Virgin Mary out of elephant poo or put Jesus in a jar of your own piss but I do care if I'm forced upon pain of imprisonment to pay for it. I will never understand the "Greater Good" argument and the "Tragedy of the Commons" argument is just stupid in this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ofili http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ofili EDIT: The Virgin Mary painting was not, according to wiki, paid for by the NEA.

22 points by jalanco 14y ago

jalanco 14y ago

From the article: In 2012, Kickstarter has provided over $150 million in arts funding, more than the NEA.

bhb916 14y ago
The best part of that is that every drop of that kickstarter money was voluntary. That is to say that the donors gave their money up willfully without the application of compulsive force. The same cannot be said about the NEA. Regardless, the article hints at the primary problem with the replacement suggestion: this would effectively replace the current, centralized, political decision making with a distributed form of decision making. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

luriel 14y ago

I will make a slightly more controversial claim: With Kickstarter, who needs government granted monopolies for the arts? (ie., copyright) One should realize that most of the greatest artworks in history were created without the "benefits" of copyright (and in many cases would have required infringing on copyright, writers and painters have borrowed from each others works all through history).

TylerE 14y ago
I don't think you can argue that at all. Until very recently (on an historical time scale), mechanical copying wasn't possible at all, so copyright isn't some new thing, practically, it's just that in ye olde days it wasn't a relevant concept because you couldn't copy art - there were no CDs or records, lithography, etc. If you wanted to hear a Beethoven symphony, you had to find an orchestra that was playing, and travel to see it. Even duplicating printed work was much more work, since the type would have to be reset by hand. While the funding model was certainly different, the era was much more different. Using the romantic era or earlier as proof that (in modern society) culture could flourish without copyright is ludicrous.
- ef4 14y ago
  Your distinction is an important one, but I think it amounts to the same effect in the end. Back then, you couldn't make money by selling many copies of your art because making copies was too difficult. Now, you can't make money by selling copies of your art because making copies is too easy. But in both cases, the effect on the artist is the same: he cannot sell many copies, so he must find other ways. Like concerts and patronage.
- jonhendry 14y ago
  Cervantes had to deal with a ripoff of Don Quixote while he was writing the second part of Don Quixote, after publishing part I. It even makes up part of the plot of part II. Another author published what they claimed to be part II. It's a different form of IP infringement than simple unauthorized duplication of a work, but it's been around for a long time.
  - luriel 14y ago
    Shakespeare and many others also "stole" from many other authors, both classic and contemporaries. Art, by its own nature, tends to infringe so called "intellectual property" rules.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

greggman 14y ago

I'm sure this will get down voted but why, in the last 30 years, have we needed the National Endowment for the Arts at all? Art is massively funded. The Motion Picture Arts, The Musical Arts, The Art of Literature, The Art of Architecture, The Popular Arts (as San Diego calls comics and graphic novels), The Video Game Arts Kickstarter will help fund more art. That's great. I doubt it will get rid of NEA. The NEA is about funding things nobody wants. If people wanted them they'd already fund them directly.

cdcarter 14y ago
Note that you didn't discuss the fine arts, the one category that actually is heavily funded through grants and sponsors. Free and cheap access to the masters work is about education.
tfinniga 14y ago
> The NEA is about funding things nobody wants. That's an interesting perspective. I see it more as a tragedy of the commons situation. It's possible to make important and influential art which is not commercially viable. NEA is great for funding art that wouldn't look good on a T-Shirt, but is beneficial to the culture as a whole.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  Is it? The majority of art created today isn't founded because it doesn't look good on a T-shirt. It is because it is crap. And you art doesn't have to fit on a T-shirt to be founded. Stories could be printed in beautiful books, movies and documentaries made available as high quality downloads, paintings as posters, etc. The only art you couldn't found this way would be art that didn't say anything to anybody. §100/year from 10 thousand people is a pretty good wage. If you can't get 10 thousand people to see something in you art, then it is properly because your art is crap.
  - xorbyte 14y ago
    Is it? You equate financial viability with artistic value. But, there was Vincent van Gogh; large swaths of what we consider art today was commissioned by kings and popes and presidents on their dime, not sold or traded; it is virtually impossible, in the Kickstarter model, to fundraise sculptures and installations. I certainly don't think art needs an erudite committee approving it for 'value' (in a non-financial sense), but neither does it need to be subjected to the tyranny of the majority, lest we want to limit ourselves to bazaar kitsch dolls and whatever else can be easily mass-made and sold. So while Kickstarter can certainly replace entities like NEA for many artists (many projects seem easier, logistically, to fund through KS) I don't know this says NEA is no longer needed.

skilesare 14y ago

National funding is for things that can't get done by themselves. If kickstarter works for you, you don't need NEA there are plenty of valuable art undertakings that do not have public appeal. that is what the NEA should be doing.

noonespecial 14y ago
I don't mean this as snark. When it comes to art, if nobody wants it, why is it valuable?
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Some aspect of the national zeitgeist wants an egalitarian approach to elitism? Since "elite" artists that only appeal to the very few are seldom market winners, we (politically) recognize they are the "little guy" and desire to given them a hand against the torrent of the commercial art market. I admit, it all sounds so strange; we tell ourselves that just because we don't admire their product, the problem must be with us, and we can overcome our unworthiness by public support. Or maybe they just have good lobbyists?
- czr80 14y ago
  Same reason basic research is mostly funded by the state - there are things that are valuable to a society that no one individual will pay for.
  - cobrausn 14y ago
    Other than the claim that perhaps radical or unpopular art might inspire further art creation or bring joy to a small group who desire this kind of art, which I suppose has some value, what value does NEA funded art have to society as a whole? I certainly don't know anyone who benefits from it, which makes it nothing at all like research.
- newobj 14y ago
  You should have just gone with the snark, it would have made your comment less dumbfounding.

kmfrk 14y ago

Could we please cite some facts in this mounting tirade against public funding of the Arts?

daniel_solano 14y ago
To what extent are facts necessary? Public funding of the arts is in a large part a philosophical issue. Either you believe that it should be done or you don't. That's primarily a question of what you think the role of government should be. It's only if you agree that public funding of art is a good thing that then facts can come into play. What is the best, most effective way of doing it?
- lallysingh 14y ago
  The criteria the NEA uses for funding work is unusually absent from this discussion. And the comparative question, are differences in the results between kickstarter and the NEA significant? If so, are the NEA's results valuable?

cdcarter 14y ago

The NEA is a grant-maker. Kickstarter is a platform for a capital campaign. These are two incredibly different types of "unearned income." I have never seen an organization have a successful annual campaign through something like Kickstarter. Kickstarter itself makes it very clear it is to be used for capital campaigns with very specific purposes. Take a look at the 2012 NEA grants and think about how many of them would thrive on Kickstarter. The BSO for example, the Tanglewood grant miiiight be able to be funded but the general grant almost certainly would not. These arts organizations are modeled around an in person annual campaign through their development offices, and large-scale grants from charitable foundations (or the NEA). The entire model would break down if all funding came direct from patrons. Whether or not that model should be broken down and disrupted is a different story, but almost none of the arts organizations that are receiving MAJOR grants from the NEA are set (or may ever be set) to deal with it.

abrown28 14y ago

The only problem I have with the NEA is I'm being forced to pay for something I don't want. I don't care if you make a painting of the Virgin Mary out of elephant poo or put Jesus in a jar of your own piss but I do care if I'm forced upon pain of imprisonment to pay for it. I will never understand the "Greater Good" argument and the "Tragedy of the Commons" argument is just stupid in this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ofili http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ofili EDIT: The Virgin Mary painting was not, according to wiki, paid for by the NEA.