https://www.artnews.com/art-news/new...ks-1234619142/
Printable View
ill pass that around. ill bet no one i know qualifies though.
Cool idea.
That money will flow through the economy.
Wow! I have been a struggling ("emerging") artist here in Texas fort twenty years or so. But I was born in NYC.
Still nothing there for me. I will have to go to see the Wizzard in The Emerald City, I guess.
From hammers and chisels, to brushes and easels, to cameras and darkrooms, it takes stuff to be an artist, and the artist needs a permanent place to keep and use his stuff. If they can't have that, it's tough to be an artist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Can
Much as I admire the spirit of the program, if it doesn't pay the rent and food, its basically insufficient. At this low level the artists in question still have to be provided for by someone else (spouse, family, couch-surfing), have full time jobs that allow them to pursue art only part time, be retired on a pension, or have some other revenue stream in addition to this program. Or, you know, be homeless.
What they need, is a full time job to be artists. See the depression era programs like The Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration. If it was good enough for artists like Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange, it would likely be good enough for most of us.
bruce, thats too simple and it probably would be less costly and reach too many people. this way they can say "we tried" once the funds dry up and get a new administration by then. how many artists will come of it is the proof in the puttin.
I have no problem with offering a program like this funded with private (philanthropic) money, which is where most of the funding comes from in this case, according to the article. But I think that there is no ethical rationale for using public (taxpayers') money, both because of the moral hazard it introduces, and the inevitable political influence on the arts which it will engender--which is something I think we can all agree is not desirable. (For example: who decides who gets the grants? Political appointees. How do they get their jobs? By supporting the politicians who appoint them. Who loses if the grants are poorly made? The taxpayers, not the decision-makers.)
Sometimes, in the hope of making things better, we inadvertently make them worse. This is all too often the case when we try to get the government to do things that the private sector could be doing, or already is.