4 ms·
Countries benefit massively from art. First-grade art attracts wealthy people who pay local taxes and wealthy tourists who contribute to the economic cycle of t
by whiplash451 8mo ago
Countries benefit massively from art. First-grade art attracts wealthy people who pay local taxes and wealthy tourists who contribute to the economic cycle of the country. For some European countries, the numbers are mind-blowing.
- fedeb95 8mo agoit is a short term benefit.
- _heimdall 8mo agoWhat you're describing then would only be a short term chicken and egg problem. If, once established, a thriving art scene generates value by attracting tourism, wealthy individuals who want to patronize the arts, etc then the artists would be able to charge enough to fund themselves and potentially do very well for themselves. In that scenario we'd only need to fully subsidize artists for a short period of time, the subsidy law should have an expiry date.
- whiplash451 8mo ago> we'd only need to fully subsidize artists for a short period of time That's literally how it works (at least in France). The government sponsors artists early on. Those who make it big don't need the gov sponsoring (and lose eligibility to it). Those who don't continue to receive the sponsoring. Some artists take a very long time to pan out (some way after their death) so it makes little sense to cut funding to artists on an expiry date basis.
- _heimdall 8mo agoDoes it make sense for the government to fund artists indefinitely though, if the argued value is related to tourism, patronage, etc?