How many artists do you know who can work full-time as self-funded, or art-funded, creative workers?
For those who think art is worthless, imagine your days without art. No music, theatre, cartoons, videos, novels ... what a bleak existence that would be.
Who do you know works as a creative, not for an employer, production-line style, but their own self-motivated creativity funds their lifestyle?
The only people I know who are living such a life are YouTubers with Patreons. It's such a shame because so much creativity is pushed to "odd moments of hobby time" instead of enriching us all, due to the overwhelming priority to just stay alive and/or feed their kids.
I myself went into IT because I knew even if I went the art college route that I would never be able to live a comfortable life on the earnings I would make, and my brother has two jobs so only manages to fit his music into his schedule with extreme discipline. The most recent wall art I purchased was from a super-talented lady who has a day job in a law office.
Creating Art Full Time is a Literal Privilege
It has long been established that in the UK if you want to participate fully in being an artist, then you need to be from, or benefit from, an upper-class background in all but a tiny number of edge cases.
Don't believe me? Google the word "patron".
There is a reason historical artists are portrayed as aristocrats or starving in rat-infested lofts.
This recently was brought back into public conversation with an article about UK nepo-babies.
It shows how class privilege in Britain works: not only by opening doors for some, but also shutting others out. A paper published in the Sociology journal in November 2022 found that just 8 percent of actors, musicians and writers were from working-class backgrounds: half the number of the 70s, despite decades of initiatives to make the arts more open and diverse.
Those in positions of influence within the arts, however, tended to be from privileged backgrounds and to favour those who were the same.
Just to make connections necessary to gain opportunities, a vast number of artists had to attend super expensive private schools that would price out all but a tiny number of otherwise credible, talented and passionate people.
This means that culture as a whole is not getting the best and brightest contributions, just those who know they won't starve while pursuing their dreams.
Now, those who benefit from this situation would argue that keeping full arts participation to the select few aristocratically selected individuals it inherently makes it a meritocracy, following USA-style profit-worship:
- They are wealthy
- Because they are blessed by God
- God wouldn't bless the unworthy
- Therefore they must be worthy
- Therefore they are better people than people not blessed with wealth
Which, if you have never read a bible, would make some kind of logic.
Unfortunately for them, we do know that people from working-class and poor backgrounds have as much or more raw talent and potential, they just very rarely get given a chance to prove it.
What about UBI?
I do like the idea of a government-run Universal Basic Income, not just for the arts but society as a whole. Imagine how much more charity, public works, and society-benefitting projects would happen if people could participate and still put food on the table?
Research has shown time again that people don't want to be idle. Given access to mental healthcare, a warm dry home, and food, they turn their attention to being productive members of a community more times than not.
Unfortunately, we mostly live in societies that only value time spent on making a profit. Usually for someone else further up the pyramid. Tabloids, talking heads on TV, and awful politicians are unlikely to move forward with something that literally is intended to give people "something for nothing" unless the recipients are them (see: Covid loans and PPE £ scandals).
Enter Hive and Crypto
While most of crypto attracts people who are in it for the "Lambo" culture, there are also a bunch of people who look at crypto as a technology enabling more than individual wealth.
Here in Hive we have an ability to fund projects with our currency. Most of these projects tend to either be technology additions, apps and tools or games, and a percentage are silly vanity projects for those involved (like emblazoning a racing car with logos or a documentary that most people will never see).
How could we carve out a percentage of the fund for creative works? Is there a way, filtering for automated AI-produced work fund farming scams, that we could be a patron of the arts?
Considering that the vast majority of people who make a living as artists work for corporations, rather than for themselves, and also seem to be far less talented than independent artists or hobbyists with some other form of income, I think your "solution" would actually exacerbate the problem that you're drawing attention to. Bear in mind that entertainment corporations don't really need to compete in the free market, since they are subsidised by a handful of obscenely rich wankers with an agenda to push. This is the reason that the products of dynasties are usually so unbelievably incompetent.
Small-scale studios and independent artists, on the other hand, are free to concentrate on making art that is good, and should they succeed in the free market, they can quit their day jobs.
@jacobtothe, care to provide your two units of currency?
Maybe "my 2 Satoshis" should become an idiom.
We are entering a time of unprecedented opportunity for independent artists now thanks to the internet and the advance of technology. A home studio can now mean a decent microphone, a laptop, and open-source recording software. Patreon, Kickstarter, GoFundMe, IndieGoGo, etc. make it possible to crowdsource innovative independent artists. And crypto remains almost entirely untested. NFTs could have real power for artists outside the status quo despite all the nonsense and hype recently.
The art community is a mess, but I question your premise that there is some nefarious "profit-worship" involved. That said, why do you think artists are owed a living? Like any other good or service, supply and demand play a role. What is so sacred about self-expression that it warrants cultural support by default?
What is profit? People act to achieve desired ends. These ends are perceived as beneficial, or they would not be pursued. In the market, profit is only possible by mutual consent for mutual benefit. It is a win-win scenario. One party profits monetarily, the other by satisfaction of wants through the goods and services bought with money. Art, food, housing, clothing, and everything else must all be understood within this framework. People act because they desire a benefit, and the market allows a complex network of cooperative voluntary exchanges with price signals to guide producers and consumers.
You say, "I do like the idea of a government-run Universal Basic Income, not just for the arts but society as a whole. Imagine how much more charity, public works, and society-benefitting projects would happen if people could participate and still put food on the table?"
Where does government get the money it redistributes? Money itself is not wealth. Wealth is the goods and services produced to serve the needs and wants of consumers. Money is a useful medium of exchange, account, and store of value. Government cannot get money unless it first takes it from those who earned it through voluntary exchanges (theft) or prints new units of currency created out of nothing, thereby inflating the money supply and diluting the buying power of money already in circulation while also granting extraordinary wealth to those who first receive the new funds before prices adjust (theft and deception). Government can only be destructive because it is a monopoly of violence operating by coercive means. Government is not a producer of goods and services demanded by the economy, or a center of charitable activity, it is an extortionist racket.
The beauty of cryptocurrency in its current form is its voluntary nature as an alternative outside of government control despite the frantic regulatory overreaches by the political class. This does mean it could be possible to design a UBI blockchain, but how do you get people to choose it? Therein lies your problem. Can you make it work voluntarily? And again, I question your premise that art needs to be enshrined in society when we have more power than ever before to undermine the elitist art community and support art we actually appreciate now. Remember, both art and the economy as we know them is a consequence of many factors, not some evil capitalist bogeyman.
Do you think art can be valuable without someone placing monetary value on it?
Value is a subjective opinion. What I think is valuable, someone else may find worthless. It isn't some universal property intrinsic to goods and services.
A price is an offer to exchange. It has no bearing on value aside from signalling that the asked sum is subjectively valued more highly than the good or service offered.
Only individuals can choose, act, and assign value. "Society" is an abstract term for individuals and their myriad associations. It has no power to reason or act.
Government is not society, it is a subset of people who claim a territorial monopoly in violence. Government is inherently anti-social.
Does this clarify my position on the matter?