15 ms·
Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists
- OsrsNeedsf2P 7mo ago> Ireland's Culture Minister Patrick O'Donovan said the scheme was the first permanent one of its kind in the world [...] The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle. So it's permanent, but the recipients don't get it permanently?
- close04 7mo ago> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years Budgets are limited so they can't give to everyone all the time. They give each batch of artists money for 3 years and then move to the next batch. Interesting to see if there's a chance they start looping over.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- Jtsummers 7mo agoThe program was run as a trial (time limited, not permanent). They've now made it a permanent program (no time limit, not temporary). So to answer your question: Yes, it's permanent (or as permanent as any gov't program can be), but the recipients don't get the money for an indefinite span of time (permanently).
- ericmcer 7mo agoWon't this kind of shaft their employment prospects as well? Other industries don't move as fast but a 3 year layoff in tech could be a career death sentence.
- nemomarx 7mo agoDo they have to be unemployed during the grant period? They could still find commissions and other stuff during that time or sell their art. And I guess for an artist either way you have a lot of new portfolio entries?
- Jtsummers 7mo ago> Do they have to be unemployed during the grant period? No, they're allowed to have other work or earn money from their art. The intent is to subsidize their income, not be their exclusive income for those three years.
- shevy-java 7mo agoThat's an interesting idea. One has to test things to see if they can be made to work. I think the amount is something that can be disputed, but the underlying idea is, IMO, a sound one. Similar to the "unconditional basic income" idea - again, the amount can be contemplated, but the idea is sound, even more so as there are more and more superrich ignoring regular laws or buying legislation in a democracy. That means the old model simply does not work. Something has to change - which path to pick can be debated, but something has to be done.
- Legend2440 7mo ago>pledging to pay 2,000 creative workers 325 euros ($387) per week >The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle. Is it really correct to call this UBI? It is hardly universal if it applies to only 2000 selected artists. Seems more like a 3-year grant, similar to the art grants awarded by the national endowment for the arts.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- sejje 7mo agoThe term universal isn't used in the article.
- EGreg 7mo agoAll these places use the word UNCONDITIONAL instead of UNIVERSAL because they are scared of printing money and paying all their citizens, while jacking up pigovian taxes on the other side. Here is how to do it properly without waiting for the federal government and currency: https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-basic-income-in-communities/1069 https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-basi...
- its_magic 7mo ago[flagged]
- tonyedgecombe 7mo ago[flagged]
- alistairSH 7mo ago[flagged]
- nradov 7mo ago
- abe94 7mo agohere is the government report - https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/b87d2659/20250929_BIA_CBA_Final_Report.pdf https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/b87d2659/20250929_BIA... The cost benefit analysis includes a euro value to attribute to better wellbeing, using the WELLBY framework and apply £13,000 per WELLBY
- yesfitz 7mo agoPrevious discussions: 3 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900 4 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29977176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29977176 People have seemed critical of the presentation, scope, and goal of this program. (e.g. It's not "universal" basic income, the number of recipients is limited to 2,000, and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?) Now it seems that we'll get some real world answer to those questions/concerns.
- bell-cot 7mo ago> and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers? There are far more than 2,000 real, paying jobs for schoolteachers. And for grocery clerks. And for nurses. And for fire fighters. And for drivers of rubbish lorries. And for ... Not so much for the folks who hope to be the next James Joyce or Louis le Brocquy.
- sam_lowry_ 7mo agoI hope to be the next Rothshild, give me a trillion!
- its_magic 7mo ago[flagged]
- mantas 7mo agoThose can go and do normal jobs like grocery clerks. While doing their art in free time. Like many famous artists were doing.
- bell-cot 7mo agoWith the modest size of the monthly checks, most of them may need to do that anyway. But the obvious point is to help "artists" in Ireland. It's pretty normal for small nations to want to cultivate / protect / subsidize their arts / culture / language / whatever. The Irish gov't isn't trumpeting this program because they think it'll annoy Irish voters.
- Imnimo 7mo ago>The randomly selected applicants Why would you want to randomly select here?
- mikkupikku 7mo agoThat's the best way to do it. Otherwise all the money will go to the rich brat children of politicians/etc who are socially connected to whoever they put on the selection committees.
- gus_massa 7mo agoI agree that it's a problem. But how do you prevent it from been overflowed by people like me that can't draw a circle with the bottom of a bottle?
- mikkupikku 7mo agoDunno tbqh. Maybe the media will police it by shaming people who abuse it.
- digiown 7mo agoI'm not sure that's true. What kind of rich brat will go through the trouble of all that for a couple hundred euros a month? Random isn't a bad way of doing it in any case though.
- carlosjobim 7mo agoRich parents are masters of helping their children exploit the system in as many of the thousands of ways that exist. A few hundred here, another hundred there, maybe some one-off thousands here. In most of the world, rich people are rich because they are good at exploiting government funds. It's a lifestyle.
- left-struck 7mo agoRandom selection is possibly the fairest way to select almost anything, depending on your definition of fair.
- paul7986 7mo agoDublin's Grafton Street with it's buskers is and was so unique to this American. I wondered if anywhere else in the world matches the musicianship heard on that street and in Dublin's bars? Music is engrained in it's culture in a way I have not experienced before(tho the weird looks I received wearing my baseball cap in Dublin was off putting as I had not experienced that in Berlin, Paris, Reykjavik, Amsterdamn, etc). Overall It's a bit sad going to American bars and not hearing the whole bar singing along to the musician up on stage. Amercia's culture I feel is way more focused on celebrity then musicianship.
- colmmacc 7mo agoGrafton St buskers at their best are really really good, but there are also some very average buskers there every day too. New Orleans is a stand-out in the US where you can find world-class jazz bands playing on the streets. Nashville has plenty in the evenings, and then you can find hot spots in some cities. I've seen regular buskers in Boston, Seattle, Sarasota, and Boulder - usually in pedestrianized touristy quarters.
- paul7986 7mo agoGuess it's Dublin's bar culture and vibe that really stood out to me. I've been to the French Quarter yet don't recall almost everyone in each bar there singing along to their local musicians. Musicians who are really good to great like in Dublin's bars I experienced in December.
- KittenInABox 7mo agoBusking and live music is definitely still around. Especially in larger cities. I agree that the neighborhood bar scene sucks but that's more an issue that everyone has to drive home. Once you get to a place with good transportation or a downtown hub it all comes roaring back.
- badc0ffee 7mo agoI need to hear more about the baseball cap thing.
- TitaRusell 7mo agoThey had something like this in the Netherlands during the 80s. Basically everyone was out of a job back then so it didn't really matter. Worst recession since 1929. Artists had to make a buch of art which was then given to the government. The state ended up with entire warehouses filled with crap.
- oulipo2 7mo agoReally cool! Looking forward to the findings of that study!
- yawboakye 7mo ago<rant> the irish government is adept at misplaced priorities, (very) short-term thinking, pursuers of feel-good vibes, basically everything besides running a state. incompetence here has bred the need for more and varied welfare programs just so we can have a variety of careers that cater to the needs of life. of course, necessity of the arts is undisputed. but can the artist make a career here when the money you make from a show, including tips, can’t pay your utility bills? when your income can’t afford you decent accommodation? </rant>
- farceSpherule 7mo ago[dead]
- arexxbifs 7mo agoSweden introduced a similar scheme in 1964, in which artists (broadly defined, having since come to include one clown and one chess player) have been given a basic income, supplementing their other incomes up to a specific level. Artists couldn't apply for this, but were officially selected. The program was stopped in 2010, meaning no new recipients have been selected since. As far as I know, there's been no studies surrounding any measurable increase in artistic quality or artistic output. It is of course easy to point out how deeply unfair such programs are on multiple levels. Unsurprisingly, many recipients have utilized loopholes in order to receive the grant despite having incomes and wealth well above the threshold. Edit to clarify: Sweden still grants long-term stipends to various artists, sometimes up to a decade. What's described above is a guaranteed, life-long, basic income.
- ergocoder 7mo agoI'd bet what happens is that it just funded a bunch of children of upper middle class families. Scholarships and this kind of funds happen elsewhere and are based on merits. They end up funding a bunch of upper middle class's children because it turns out those children are well-equipped to perform higher on merits. If you are too rich, then you wouldn't need this kind of fund. If you are below upper middle class, then you would have a hard time competing with children from that class. The upper middle class isn't rich enough to fund the kid but is good enough to accumulate a lot of merits.
- RobotToaster 7mo ago>They end up funding a bunch of upper middle class's children because it turns out those children are well-equipped to perform higher on merits. I'd argue they are well equipped to give the appearance of merit, rather than performing higher on actual merit.
- ergocoder 7mo agoThat's not true. We can easily look at countries like Vietnam and Thailand where the merit is basically exam-based. Extremely difficult to cheat or "give the appearance". The upper middle class's children perform very well. The top universities are full of these children. They are the top of the country. They are math/computer/science olympiads If you are too rich, then the children are too spoiled. If you are too poor, then you don't have time and space to study nor access to private tutors.
- jl6 7mo ago> Ireland began the three-year trial in 2022 Did anyone take a note of what kind of output the artists produced? Was any of it any good?
- Schmerika 7mo agoIs art subjective?
- pessimizer 7mo agoIs cash?
- inglor_cz 7mo agoA similar program in the Netherlands once ran for decades. It produced about quarter a million uh, tangible units of art, which not even government institutions wanted anymore, not even for free. The warehouses became full and dusty. This was later one of the motivations to cancel the program.
- Schmerika 7mo agoNot that similar though. What you're talking about is paying people to produce 'art' by the unit. This scheme is about paying credentialed artists so they can breath a little bit. No need to supply slop.
- inglor_cz 7mo agoYes, there are differences. BTW credentialism - good or bad? It certainly seems to me that the idea of credentials has crept from medicine, law and engineering into formerly freer and more bohemian territories. An idea of a perepiska for singers or actors would be considered absurd by most people in history. But once money transfers are in place, bureaucracy inevitably follows.
- Schmerika 7mo ago
- jamesbelchamber 7mo agoIf they think this is good/important then fine but what they've created is a grant programme, not a UBI. Personally I would have thought this money would have been better spent getting people on the margins the stability to retrain into in-demand skilled careers (e.g. single, unskilled parents training as electricians or plumbers). That feels like it would be a more durable, multi-generational benefit. But again, this is just a grant programme.
- Jtsummers 7mo ago> not a UBI Who said it is a UBI that this "rebuttal" even makes sense to appear here? The Irish government isn't calling it a UBI. The article doesn't call it a UBI. Even the FAQ for the program says it is not UBI: >> Why this is not a Universal Basic Income >> It is important to note that that the Basic Income for the Arts Pilot is not a Universal Basic Income. This is a sectoral intervention to support practicing artists and creative arts workers to focus on their creative practice. This policy is separate to the Universal Basic income as outlined in the Programme for Government. https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-and-sport/publications/basic-income-for-the-arts-pilot-scheme-your-questions-answered/ https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-a... - C-f for "universal"
- jamesbelchamber 7mo agoBasic Income and UBI are colloquially synonyms, people use them interchangeably, and the Irish government are almost certainly using it to endear themselves to supporters of UBI and to get more coverage for their policy than media would give them if they just called it a grant. This happens all the time. For example, in the UK there was a push for a "living wage" in the 2010s, which the government responded to by rebranding the minimum wage the "National Living Wage" and bumping it a little for over-25s. This seems to be the same thing.
- Fargren 7mo agoThe first word of UBI is universal. The entire concept relies on that characteristic.
- csense 7mo agoDoes the government get equity in the artist's work? If one of the recipients turns out to be the next Picasso, and makes say $1 million selling a painting (either as an NFT or a traditional art auction), does he have to give the $1 million to the government?
- hippich 7mo agoState will tax it. And the tax amount from 1M is infinitely bigger than the tax from 0
- ElevenLathe 7mo agoThis is admittedly a tangent, but I love that British (and apparently Irish) government programs are commonly called "schemes". To American ears, it always sounds like some grand confidence trick is being pulled.
- rorylawless 7mo agoGrowing up in the UK, we would be sent to a “play scheme” during the school holidays. Weird phrase.
- esperent 7mo agoAs an Irish person, in normal speech the word "scheme" has exactly the same shady connotations as it does for Americans. Calling someone a "schemer" is a common insult. I've always assumed the government started using the word in a rare moment of honesty and it stuck.
- TrainedMonkey 7mo agoOr perchance it is the other way around. The word started as official term and over time got shady connotation because can't trust Big Government.
- hackable_sand 7mo agoAs in "schematic"
- nv2156 7mo agoIn India too, discounts and promotional policies are commonly called 'schemes.' I learned the hard way that in the US, the word has a negative connotation when I asked my rental office about any 'schemes,' they looked at me with total shock.
- jerbearito 7mo agoThat's hilarious! I hope y'all cleared up the confusion quickly.
- qualitylearing 7mo ago[flagged]
- thomassmith65 7mo agoWhat percentage of people with Irish roots live in Ireland vs live in Britain and North America? There were nativists who complained about that, too.
- thegrim000 7mo agoOk, let me guess, without looking at the article .... is it a "pilot" that's rolled out to a small number of people, for a limited period of time, and its success is judged by surveying those people on whether they were happy to get free money? I bet it was.
- tgrowazay 7mo agoClose > Ireland rolled out a permanent basic income scheme for the arts on Tuesday, pledging to pay 2,000 creative workers 325 euros ($387) per week following a trial that participants said eased financial strain and allowed them to spend more time on projects. > The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle. O'Donovan said he would like to increase the number of recipients over time. > Over 8,000 applicants applied for the 2,000 places in the pilot scheme. > A report on the trial found it lowered the likelihood of artists experiencing enforced deprivation, and reduced their levels of anxiety and reliance on supplementary income.
- themafia 7mo ago> It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through [...] and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments, Which sounds quite a bit like "we spent more on one type of welfare so we ended up spending less on a different type of welfare." Which, okay, good, but I don't think you can say you "recouped" anything.
- hoppp 7mo agoSo good for Ireland!!
- PunchyHamster 7mo agoThat seems like... insane discrimination ?
- thomassmith65 7mo agoYes, most of us are programmers. The government should support us, too, since we'll soon be less useful than trad musicians.
- Schmerika 7mo agoIt... isn't?
- pessimizer 7mo ago[dead]
- lkrubner 7mo ago“Ireland offers long-term grants for artists” is how this would have been written 50 years ago. The idea is not new, only the rhetoric.
- stubish 7mo agoGrants operate differently over here. You have to write a submission, proposing works and budget and generally justifying. It is assessed by a committee. Politics gets involved. And a few people get larger chunks of money and the people holding the purse strings retain control on what is produced. It is essentially work on commission for the government, except you rarely get 100% of your costs covered. Whereas in this Irish program, it is less money for more people chosen by lottery. The only editorial control is who is qualified to enter the lottery. It is also subsidizing the artist and not the art work, with artists working in cheap mediums receiving the same as artists dealing with high costs. So you are still going to need a grant or commission if you work in monumental bronze.
- appreciatorBus 7mo agoSince only people with a wealthy family safety net have the wherewithal to call themselves artists, these schemes just end up as a transfer from poor to rich (kids)
- miladyincontrol 7mo agoiirc from previous criticism I saw on this a majority of the trial recipients were retirement age adults, but all the same people much wealthier with the privilege to have time/money to spend doing art. Younger artists? Not established enough.
- ghiculescu 7mo agoDeeply ironic that those who claim to support socialism are so okay with taking from the poor to give to the rich.
- appreciatorBus 7mo agoA story as old as time, unfortunately.
- tomcam 7mo agoI don’t get it. Why are artists more deserving than unemployed insurance salespeople or carpet installers?
- socalgal2 7mo agoAgreed. Can just all myself an artist to get other people's tax money?
- crossbody 7mo agothere is art in getting other people's tax money, so yes
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- rpdillon 7mo agoIt seems there are 2000 positions and 8000 applicants. The program cost $74M, but more than paid for itself: > It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through increases in arts-related expenditure, productivity gains and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments, according to a government-commissioned cost-benefit analysis.
- SoftTalker 7mo agoThey were wise to limit it, otherwise Ireland would see an unprecidented rise in the number of artists in its population.
- RealityVoid 7mo agoOh, the horror.
- ua709 7mo agoIt’s also not permanent. It’s for three years and then once off one can’t apply to the program for another three years. Reminds me of the WPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Art_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Art_Project
- notepad0x90 7mo agoIf the Irish truly want this, I'm glad for them. But in my view, arts should be funded by people in private. Any spare resources the government can muster up should be invested in improving the security and quality of life for its people. If no one ever goes hungry, and their medical needs are met swiftly, and justice is swift and accessible to all. then I can see the appeal in funding arts. But even then, sciences can meaningfully and in the long-term improve humans' lives. I don't even know if the arts would benefit from this. Will the government arbitrate whose art is better? Private persons would, they won't fund a terrible artist. and from what I know about artists, the rejection and failure is instrumental to revelations and breakthroughs in their art. Without that, will the state be funding or facilitating mediocrity in art? Imagine if this was for entrepreneurs. If the government will provide income so long as you're starting businesses. If you didn't have much to begin with, it might prevent you from giving up businesses that are failing, hold on to that restaurant years after it's failed because you like the vibe, and your needs are met. But if you'll eventually be in danger of running out of money to support yourself, you'll be forced to shut doors early, learn lessons and move on to something better. I'm just making a case against dreams being kept alive artificially on life-support. And of the consequence of not having adversity when needed. I don't know if it's true, but I remember an analogy of artificial biospheres failing to grow trees and plants early on, because they didn't simulate wind. the trees needed the resistance, push and adversity of wind to thrive. But I'll digress, I'm not saying Ireland did wrong, just putting my thoughts on the subject out there. They know what they're doing, I'm sure. And this is sounding too much like damn linkedin post, and on HN too of all places, talking about entrepreneurship, shame on me! :)
- bandrami 7mo ago"basic income scheme for a few selected artists"
- reeddev42 7mo agoThis is fascinating because it implicitly acknowledges that some valuable work does not have a clear market path. Artists create cultural value that is difficult to monetize directly. The same is true for a lot of open source and indie software. I have been running a free AI companion bot on Telegram for months and the operating cost (5/month server) comes entirely out of pocket. The users get genuine value from it but there is no revenue model that does not compromise the experience. If I add ads or charge money, the thing that makes it feel like talking to a friend (no transactional friction) disappears. Ireland is essentially saying: some things are worth publicly funding because the market undersupplies them. That is a healthier framing than trying to force everything into a subscription box.
- Daub 7mo agoArtist speaking. A similar scheme was employed by Holland for many years. The state committed to buy at least one artwork from each artist per year and predictably their warehouses became filled with crap art that no one wanted. That being said, wise governments recognize the value of some kind of support of the arts. One reason for the incredible esteem that Korean culture is held in within Asia is the Korean government's active support of its filmmaking, TV and music industry. This was also true in Renaissance Italy (courtesy of the Medici family) and in 17th Century France (courtesy of Louis XIV). It was even true of the CIA's active support of abstract expressionism. The payoff of such support is soft power, which is a very real force.
- sixo 7mo agoEven in the US we see cities becoming desirable place to live when they successfully cultivate a film scene, or an art school, and being dead when they don't. But this feels like a better approach than a basic income (which is an invitation to idleness)--make it easy to use the environs for film, streamline permitting, provide cheap capital, solicit locals for public installations.
- GaryNumanVevo 7mo ago> crap art that no one wanted. Through the kunstuitleen they leased and sold art to galleries and private homes. It was like a library for contemporary art which paid struggling artists and their families, while also exposing the public to more art. To say that "no one wanted" is a massively overblown. Thousands of art pieces lived happily in many Dutch homes.
- Daub 7mo agoOK, maybe my use of that phrase was a bit ill-judged. However, aside from supporting artists, what did the initiative achieve? Keeping artists off the dole should not be, IMHO, a goal in itself. The reputation of Dutch culture at the time was not brilliant, though neither was it bad. A strategic attitude would have been more effective... maybe target one or two artists and promote them. The Young British Artists (YBA) boom of the 80s was a product of the innovative teaching environment of Goldsmiths' college plus the drive of people like Damien Hirst, who organized the ground-breaking Freeze exhibition. The British Council did their best to capitalize on this.
- ShinyaKoyano 7mo ago[dead]
- swaits 7mo ago[flagged]
- cyberjerkXX 7mo agoThis is just the state contracting 2000 artists to do nothing...
- falcor84 7mo ago> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle. "Permanent", I don't think that word means what you think it means.
- CalRobert 7mo agoThe frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL. The only person I know getting this money was already semi-retired after selling their house in London and retiring to the Irish countryside, and basically just noodles around on the guitar now and then.
- krisoft 7mo ago> The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. Frankly we don’t know the selection criteria for the program this year. It will be only released in April. But we know the selection criteria for the pilot program, and for that this was not true. > So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL. Again we don’t know the full program’s eligibility criteria yet. Under the pilot program there were two separate streams. Those who were recently trained, and those who were “practicing artist”. Your hypothetical “artist who gave up art” might fall into the “recently trained” stream and thus be eligible. Or if they gave up on art a long ago (more than 5 years), there are ways they can get back to it. They can start practicing their art on the side again, produce a portfolio of work and thus become eligible again. They don’t need to be full time artist for this. > The only person I know getting this money In the pilot program they randomly selected 2000 participants from those who where eligible. So to get the money in the pilot program you both needed to be eligible, have applied for it, and be lucky enough in the lottery. Because of this lottery whoever is getting it today is not representative of who is all eligible for it.
- Azrael3000 7mo agoAdditionally i would argue that in every such programm there will be people that abuse the system. Just because gp knows one such person, does not mean that everybody will be doing that. The article also mentions that overall the program had a positive impact.
- 7mo ago
- thepaulmcbride 7mo agoIt's wild to me how many people in the comments see any form of government doing anything as shady. It is doubly wild to me that using public funds to create art is seen as a bad thing.
- skywalqer 7mo agoYou know that tax money is taken from people who could buy art with it? Or, maybe buy food and other things that they need even more than art at the moment.
- thepaulmcbride 7mo agoIn a society with a progressive tax system these things are overwhelmingly paid for by people who have vastly more money than they need to survive. Taxation when done correctly is a good thing.
- erxam 7mo agoYou have to remember this is a site geared towards American techbros. Americans don't know what culture even means, much less why it's important. Cultural creations to Americans are shit like burger or Coke ads. It's even worse for techbros. All techbros ever read are self-help books and Nick Land's meth-fueled ramblings. Peter Thiel is a head honcho techbro because he was able to finish The Lord of the Rings.
- erxam 7mo agoYou ask an American what's the last painting he saw and what he thought about it and he'll bring up whatever random shit some vastly-underpaid and over-exploited immigrant will have been made to plaster over a McDonald's wall. The "intellectual" Americans will bring up Thomas Kinkade and how his work embodies the true nature of what American society should be all about. His pieces make them long for the good old past where non-whites knew their place and segregation was a godly law.
- baalimago 7mo agoBut how will they ever create good art without suffering and poverty?
- RupertSalt 7mo agoIn the United States, the National Endowment for the Arts has issued more than 128,000 grants, totaling more than $5 billion, to fund the projects of American artists. These subsidies have not lacked controversy, and were eventually challenged at the Supreme Court level, during the Clinton administration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Arts_v._Finley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Art... If you or your parents would like to sample a NSFW taste of your tax dollars at work, try this deep cut from Plaintiff Karen Finley: https://youtu.be/5gk6JCeGExo?si=FEqZtLlDiQDr0_XI https://youtu.be/5gk6JCeGExo?si=FEqZtLlDiQDr0_XI What criteria of artistic merit, cultural relevance, and common decency will Irish artists need to meet, in order to qualify for their basic income?
- vintermann 7mo ago"Universal basic income" for artists: so radical and socialist even the US had it already.
- RupertSalt 7mo agoNeither nation promises universal income: 8,000 Irish artists applied, and 2,000 were accepted. Likewise, with the NEA, since they offer grants, you'd need to qualify, apply, and justify your work, and probably renew on an annual basis. Ireland selected the applicants randomly. I would suppose the 8,000 needed to meet qualifications first. Ireland promises €325/week. The NEA grants seem to be on a project basis. So neither of these programs are anything like UBI. UBI is the buzzword that sets us all atwitter with eager hopefulness and aspirations. Artist grant programs are more like "publish or perish" research scholars. Most grant recipients view the application process as daunting and stressful, especially when it's not in their wheelhouse. "Grant writer" is a job title and a profession unto itself these days. Even charities and welfare organizations depend on grants themselves, so their recipients may be cut off if the grants don't come in on time and fill their budgets. Ireland's program is like being on the dole. "Here's enough to subsist on while you do your art and try to establish yourself." After 3 years, they're cut off for 3 years, so the incentive exists to become self-sufficient in that time. Subsidizing the arts has been the realm of religion, including Christianity, for thousands of years. Michelangelo and Bernini were among thousands and thousands of artists who were funded by the Church to create music, sculpture, architecture, images, and any other sacred object in their service. If socialism or communism are the first thing to spring to your mind, please rethink and consider that these philosophies sought to supplant the original collectives: religions; and the religious leaders and patrons were distributing wealth to every possible artisan and artist and composer and performer, in the service of truth, beauty, and goodness. Nobody knows the pain of shrinking churches like Ireland does, and so it really is incumbent on their secular government to pick up the tab here, lest the hands of artists become idle and restless.
- elnatro 7mo agoWhy only for artists?
- raffraffraff 7mo agoMy wife is an artist and she absolutely hates this. For a start, it's a lottery. 2000 randomers who call themselves artists will get no-questions-asked income regardless of their skill or importance as artists. We have people who are full time carers for family members who get less money in their allowance, and it's means-tested. So you can be a millionaire heir / heiress, independently wealthy and still be eligible for it. One artist on Twitter bragged about getting it, and has been using the "extra money" to go on long holidays. It's basically free world travel for her. Also, what is an artist? There's one guy on twitter who gets this income and really, he just seems to take bad semi pornographic photos. Like the world really needs more of that. Another lady my wife knows personally is a terrible artist, never had any talent and doesn't make money. No sense of colour, no line skills, just paints awful blobs in awful colours. She's 100% in favour of this scheme and won't shut up about it on twitter. My wife has been struggling to make an income from her art for decades, but has created a small business around it, wedding stationery, other print fits. Guess what? She probably doesn't qualify as "an artist" she "runs a small print business". She also thinks that the government could do a lot of practically things to make life easier for artists but it's easier to take your budget and just give it to random artists. No effort, no real benefit. It's laziness and incompetence. I know exactly one "real" artist whose paintings will genuinely be hanging on walls for hundreds of years. He has no business around his art, he literally paints and holds exhibitions to sell his work. His name is famous in art circles and you can instantly recognise his style whenever you see it. His work is truly amazing. He has a wife and two kids and struggles sometimes. The long gaps between exhibitions, the worry that an exhibition won't go well. Anxiety, depression. Did he get this magic lottery? Did he fuck.
- urschrei 7mo agoMy partner is an artist and she absolutely loves this. For a start, it's a lottery. 2000 people who meet very broad but generally fair eligibility criteria (https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-and-sport/publications/basic-income-for-the-arts-pilot-scheme-guidelines/#eligibility https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-a...) will get no-questions-asked income regardless of their skill or importance as artists, these being qualities that are both highly subjective and not fixed in time. So you can be anyone – rich, poor, or something in between – and still be eligible for it. All you have to do is meet the criteria, which were created in consultation with artists. Also, what is an artist? Thankfully that's not for me to say, because I have quite a narrow view of what art is, and that view would certainly exclude some people who were successful in the pilot. My partner has been struggling to make an income from her art for over a decade. As she is a working artist under the pilot definition, she qualifies for the lottery even though she runs a small business (to be precise, she's self-employed – making and selling her art full time. There is a reasonable chance that you have seen it). She also thinks that the government could take many other practical steps steps to make life easier for artists, but that taking a small amount of money and giving it to random artists has a huge potential upside: practically no effort, many benefits. I know several artists whose paintings will genuinely be hanging on walls for hundreds of years. Or prints. Or photographs. Most make ends meet, and one or two are comfortable. Their work ranges from truly amazing to decidedly mediocre (in my opinion). Did any of them get this magic lottery? Yes, some did. Others (including my partner) did not.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- feverzsj 7mo agoWeird way to call homeless people.
- abujazar 7mo agoThis is not basic income, it’s a grant for artists. Still a good idea though.
- sgt 7mo agoI know a guy in Norway who got the "statsstipendiat" fund which basically gives him a very decent salary for the rest of his life, no questions asked. All he need to do is just continue doing whatever he's doing, make art and so on. That came as a big relief as he always struggled to make money, but it's still not a thing that a lot of people get.
- Thlom 7mo agoThat being said, it seems like this is being phased out. No new "statsstipendiat" has been awarded since 2019. Before that it was mostly 1-3 persons awarded each year.
- sgt 7mo agoThat's silly, I think more should be handed out, to encourage art and culture and let it grow organically. But I guess with the Norske Krone doing so weak and the economy and all...
- carlosjobim 7mo agoNobody is stopping you from handing out stipends to any artist you'd like to support.
- sgt 7mo agoThis is true, but I was hoping to use OPM.
- BryantD 7mo agoIreland has already provided substantial benefits to artists — income from art is exempt from income tax up to a certain level. Society has not disintegrated. Speculation and anecdotes are not terribly useful but my Irish author friend is not from a rich family, nor is she well-off, but she’s able to support her husband and child in a smaller Irish city by dint of writing several books a year and stressing a lot. I don’t think it would be possible without the tax exemption. https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money-and-tax/tax/income-tax/artists-exemption-from-income-tax/ https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money-and-tax/tax/inco...
- Spooky23 7mo agoPeople get very high and mighty when it comes to other people’s getting of benefits or paying taxes.
- bagacrap 7mo ago... shouldn't they? Ultimately that comes out of their pockets. Every tax benefit my neighbor gets simply shifts the tax burden more to me. Unless I am someone who doesn't pay taxes I guess. Do you pay taxes?
- Spooky23 7mo agoIMO, no. I pay alot of taxes. Probably more annually in the last decade than I made in total my first decade working. Many of my peers spend alot of time agonizing about this stuff and spending both mental energy and significant capital in avoidance. I get a higher ROI focusing on more valuable activities. Besides, art is an economic engine. If you studied it, I’d guess those tax credits in Ireland generate multiples in domestic economic activity.
- bagacrap 7mo agoAgreed it is a waste to spend too much time worrying. It seems dubious to claim that the tax break is a net positive for the country's economy. If art were so economically viable I suspect it would pay for itself and not need government incentives. I have no problem with the government paying a muralist to beautify some public space, but this is not that. This is subsidizing art that already has some economic value to someone, just not very much. I feel like what is actually happening is subsidizing the buying of art, as the artist themselves can afford to charge a lower price due to the tax break. So you are encouraging the population to buy more art. And I guess that has some hypothetical returns in terms of life satisfaction and civility...? I think if they framed it this way, as a tax benefit available to anyone instead of exclusively to a select few, it might be more well received. I think of the mortgage interest tax break in the USA (which is actually almost completely negated at this point by the growing standard deduction) in the same way. It encourages people to settle down, maintain a job, and buy into society, so it helps build social stability and reduces violence.
- fareesh 7mo agoim sure this will make their political art more popular with the working class
- Guestmodinfo 7mo agoI feel Ireland has produced lots and lots of literary genius like James Joyce and others. Sometimes I wake up at 5am for a book club about his book for two hours and we only finish 1 page of his book. This is the reason that is in their culture to celebrate and perpetuate art. I'm looking forward to more and more Irish art
- scandox 7mo agoSome instinct, waking at these memories, stronger than education or piety, quickened within him at every near approach to that life, an instinct subtle and hostile, and armed him against acquiescence. The chill and order of the life repelled him. He saw himself rising in the cold of the morning and filing down with the others to early mass and trying vainly to struggle with his prayers against the fainting sickness of his stomach.
- michalu 7mo agoI know so many "artists" in Paris, London, Barcelona and Berlin and I can't name a single one who deserves this. In my opinion any other demographic is more deserving. But as long as we're going to pretend anyone who says they do art is an artist or "you just a lowly pleb who doesn't understand art" we're going to have to play this game and pay for it.
- fedeb95 7mo agothis kind of reasoning will accumulate so much inefficiencies that it will eventually blow up. Or, in the best case scenario, create a proportional inflation that makes this subsidies useless. Think about the big picture: your salary is a cost for someone else. In the case of "basic income" is a cost for the tax payers. Who decides what benefits the tax payers? The state can't possibly do it, if not for a limited extent. Today we don't have a method more efficient than free market and free prices. Planned economies have historically failed. It may work for now, we all love arts; but tomorrow it will be the artisans (were is the boundary between art and crafts?), then maybe small businesses? Each of this "tax exemptions" or subsidies eats the profits of someone else. Very rarely it's the richest luxuries that are taken away. Usually it's the middle-low class that doesn't receive exemptions and subsidies who's penalized. Ironically, that same class that most could consume art, crafts, and products in general. This way society spirals toward an halt.
- philipallstar 7mo agoPeople love to carve out little niches where certain special people can succeed more easily, or the pyramid of people in competition for the prize/money is smaller, so they have a better chance of getting something out of it. The trick is not to be working class and you have a good shot at someone somewhere being someone who has some influence to give you an easier ride.
- graemep 7mo agoArt is not a free market. The art market is heavily manipulated by investors in art. The subsidies and tax exemptions artists receive are small so if you are arguing for less state subsidy or its the least of the problems you should look at. I am not convinced that this particular scheme is a good idea, but the alternative is not a free market. > then maybe small businesses? Big business already receives both explicit exemptions and defacto ones. Ireland is part of the mechanism that lets they structure their businesses in ways that avoid tax that are not available to small businesses.
- fedeb95 7mo agoyou are citing distortions of a free market to invoke more distortions. This is the spiral I'm talking about.
- deaux 7mo agoThis is absolute peak irony given that Ireland is the number two valiant protector of US big tech - right behind the US itself - including the main AI corps. Shielding them from prosecution for all the laws they violate across a population of 450+ million. And then they give their own citizens this UBI from a sliver of the protection money they get paid. Fuck you, got mine. It's despicable, they're as much as an insider threat as Hungary.
- whiplash451 7mo agoNot sure why they claim a “first in the world”. France has had a similar scheme for a long time (“intermittent du spectacle”). It is not perfect but does a great job at sustaining artists who work hard to live from their art.
- everdrive 7mo agoI wonder if there's a lot of controversy here. I'm not Irish, but I would really hate to be subsidizing the guy who taped a banana to a wall, for instance. In the general sense, I think subsidizing the arts can be a smart move, but so much art these days is nothing of the sort.
- jimnotgym 7mo agoThere are some pretty revealing comments here. People seem to think only money has value. Then there are people who see art only as a rich person's pursuit. It can be, but it doesn't need to be. I am reminded of Daniel James also known as Gwyrosydd, his bardic name. He was a Welsh language poet, who wrote probably the greatest Welsh language song, Calon Lân (means 'a pure heart'). People throughout Wales sing this song 130 years later. It is a proud continuation of a bardic tradition in Wales going back probably thousands of years. It also encompasses the Welsh culture of choral singing, noted in early recorded history. Daniel James spent his life slaving away in an ironworks, making crucible steel. John Hughes, who wrote the tune worked in an office there. I like to imagine what they could have done had they been at leisure to work and perform all day. Go Ireland, great scheme. I wish we had it over here in the UK.
- Schlagbohrer 7mo agoWhen Nirvana first moved from their small Washington town to Seattle, they were able to pay their rent + everything else from working minimum wage jobs for 2 weeks a month. They had time to practice music and pursue their art. In an era where working a full time job is not enough to pay the cost of living, arts and culture no longer exist except as hobbies for rich kids. Seattle successfully exterminated their entire arts, music, and culture scene by raising the cost of living sky high.
- closewith 7mo ago> In an era where working a full time job is not enough to pay the cost of living, arts and culture no longer exist except as hobbies for rich kids. In Ireland _today_, we are in an era where working as a nurse, paramedic, firefighter, teacher, etc have become unable to pay the cost of living, leaving them to exist only as hobbies for the rich kids who can be subsidised by their parents or immigrant labour willing to be exploited to avoid deportation. Is health not wealth? Education? Safety? Or does only the arts deserve this subsidisation?
- jimnotgym 7mo ago
- uyzstvqs 7mo agoEconomics apply the same way to art. It can be one of the most profitable solo-endeavors, when your art is generally accepted as good or meaningful. All the government-subsidized art that I've come across is straight up awful, and nobody ever actually cares for it. Typically it's weird abstract stuff. By these standards, should I be paid an income from your tax money for my 5 side-projects on GitHub that nobody uses?
- throwaway77385 7mo agoI'm reasonably sure funding for the arts is globally as low as can be. If we applied the rule of "it has to be good to be worth it" and money is the main indicator for "good", then what about the myriad products and services that are low quality / terrible, yet make tons of money because they can afford to shove marketing down everyone's throats and thus stay relevant? Most popular music is downright awful to me. Do I want to take their money away because I don't think they deserve it? No. On the other side of that coin I'd like to see some kind of counter balance. How many artists were considered awful until they suddenly became the biggest deal ever? Often posthumously. This tiny sliver of funding for some people you may not like won't take anything away from you. The early internet was so great because it was full of weird things. We've lost ALL of it, due to commercialisation. We stand to lose even more if we don't do something to fund the people who dare to be weird. This goes right back to the thing Bezos said about how we need to become interplanetary so we can inhabit the galaxy, because if we inhabit the galaxy we could have a thousand Mozarts. I think we could already have a thousand Mozarts if they weren't busy slaving away in Amazon's warehouses. Once there's a trillion humans in the galaxy and they're still all slaving away in warehouses, we still won't have any Mozarts. Not everything can or should be quantified by money and economics.
- Schlagbohrer 7mo agoNearly every great work of literature in the English canon was written by someone who was "on the dole" at the time.
- k__ 7mo agoThose programs make economic sense if the successful artists later pay for it with their taxes. If they leave the country, then not so much.
- BSDobelix 7mo agoThis is how you kill the idea of basic income, create rifts and factions.
- _heimdall 7mo agoKilling the idea of basic income would be a good thing. It will never work and would leave a society in much the same situation as other past attempts at Marxism.
- pnut 7mo ago...and when your labour, and the labour of 90+% of all humans on the planet have no economic value, we'll do what? Continue to avoid exploring obvious solutions because certain words have been made into epithets, or failed previously because they were solving future (now imminent) problems?
- _heimdall 7mo agoIf we don't fundamentally change our economic system its simple, we're all screwed. If we have a system depending on trading our labor for money to pay for stuff, and the value of our labor goes to zero, we need a different system. We can't paper over that fundamental crack by giving governments even more power to decide what every person "needs" and send out resources accordingly. There are so many problems in that system. How do we actually decide prices when every consumer has the same base level of money to spend? How does the government decide what we all need or deserve? How do we avoid the corruption taking over that massive power granted to dole out resources? Are we just living in a feudal state again? Does the government need to control the means of production to keep such a system stable?
- BSDobelix 7mo ago>Killing the idea of basic income would be a good thing. Maybe we have a different look on basic income, for me it's like unemployment money with less steps and less overhead (less bureaucrats). I also dont know why you pull in marxism, but those systems normally starve because of bureaucrats (hello germany) where you have to fill out 10 papers to create one praline, and NO i dont say germany is "marxist", but they are really good at always taking the worst from both sides. For giggles, lets say every work can be done by robots, every service by ai and energy is free (dyson sphere or whatever you want), who's left to spend money and for what? And tadaa StarTrek ;)
- Schlagbohrer 7mo agoIn Iceland, if a band can get an international tour scheduled, the Icelandic government will pay their tour costs. I believe Ireland has a similar plan of support for artists who can gain an audience abroad. Those nations know that the creativity of their people is a renewable resource and an economic engine as well as a source of cultural "soft power". I absolutely do not expect sillycon valley libertarians to understand or appreciate any of this so probably a good idea to avoid the comment section here...
- ricardobayes 7mo agoWe should normalize this. Before, artists were able to live in hotel suites, something that would be impossible nowadays.
- mdemare 7mo agoThe Netherlands has had a similar scheme for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist_subsidy_(Netherlands) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist_subsidy_(Netherlands). 1956-1987.
- misja111 7mo agoYeah but then this was called a subsidy so it would never have made the HN frontpage.
- benbojangles 7mo ago100 million euro project - that's around 1/4 of a salvator mundi
- jcarrano 7mo ago"If you need subsidies in order to live off art, you don't live off art but live off the state". As part time artist I see many problems with these schemes: - Decoupled from people's actual appreciation of the art being done: I feel better when I know people voluntarily gave up their hard-earned money for what I do. - Monopoly-style "winner takes all". The people who benefit from this are the ones already in a position to ask for the benefit. - No one bites the hand that feeds then. That will form a body of "artists" subservient to the state. The human problem is that no artist is willing to acknowledge that the public is not willing to spend money on their product.
- christkv 7mo agoThats whats happened in Norway, and even worse they gave the artists the decision making process of handing out grants leading to them self dealing or dealing to their friends.
- kbelder 7mo agoOh, wow. The absolute worst thing that could happen to this sort of program would be for artists to make the decisions about who qualifies.
- JKCalhoun 7mo agoThe obvious conclusion is that artists should make the art that the wealthy want and are willing to pay for. And in hard economic times artists ought to turn to gleaning.
- bagacrap 7mo agoMust feel pretty good when rich people get into a bidding war over your product! I have a hobby and I don't get compensated for it (quite the opposite). It's not making art, but if art were my calling I could quite easily see myself making it without any hope of monetary reward. There are plenty of people who have the same hobby as me and don't have a job -- they pursue it as is it's a job, though most are not paid either. I view that as some combination of privilege and laziness. If there's any problem here it's that people don't have enough time to pursue hobbies. I only have enough time because I work from home (no time wasted commuting). Perhaps the government should focus on where we as a society waste people's time and energy such that they have none left over for hobbies.
- miroljub 7mo agoEveryone is talking about basic income as an experiment and wondering about its impact on productivity and human behavior. And everyone talks about hypothetical scenarios and a need for massive tests, without realizing that we already have a massive test data about basic income. There's a huge group of people in western countries that has received unconditional basic income for decades, without any requirements. No questions asked, no documents required, no forced work. They could basically use that free money to flourish and pursue whatever creative activity they could imagine, without fear of economic downsides. And we know the results already. We see it in our cities daily. But as a society, we have decided not to talk about it so we are not called racists or far right. Instead, we keep ignoring this massive group with an equivalent of basic income and keep pretending we still require experiments on its effects. But yeah, let's test a few dozen Irish artists and keep pretending everyone needs to work for a living.
- danparsonson 7mo agoYou'd need to be more specific - who/what is this huge group of people you're referring to?
- miroljub 7mo ago> You'd need to be more specific - who/what is this huge group of people you're referring to? I already explained why I don't want to say it aloud in this context. Your guess is as good as anyone's. > ... as a society, we have decided not to talk about it so we are not called racists or far right.
- danparsonson 7mo agoI'm not interested in guessing what your opinion is, I'm hoping you'll share it. I don't think you'll be unfairly judged; of course if you are actually being racist then it's not unfair for anyone to call that out. I don't feel like 'society' has decided not to talk about certain things to avoid name calling; I've personally only heard that kind of phrase coming from someone who holds a racist opinion but doesn't like the label, but I'm always opening to broadening my mind. Enlighten me!
- christkv 7mo agoCountries like Norway that has this has lead to a scandal of the artists who decide who gets money, self dealing and giving grants to their friends. You are either in the group and get money or outside and get none. Get rid of it. State sanctioned art is is probably worse than no art.
- RegnisGnaw 7mo agoHow is this basic income when it’s like a job? There is only 2000 spots. There was over 8000 applicants. The committe choose the most qualified applicants.
- throwaway74628 7mo agoA novel treatment for the proverbial dying man. I understand that this program is currently assigned at random but it’s prudent to assume that they’ll shift to a “merit based” system before long i.e. sweetheart deals for members of the right clique, nepotism, and the occasional worthwhile project. For concrete examples, look no further than the content funded and produced by the national broadcaster, RTE. Aside from a few decent documentary shows, the dramas and comedies produced are extremely low quality, often with the same familiar faces who are well established in the clique. The occasional exception proves the rule.
- relistan 7mo agoAlternatively, it's successful and is expanded to support more artists in the future. Cynicism with governance not unjustified in Ireland, but here we are looking at some actual progress.
- throwaway74628 7mo agoArtists picked at random will still be subject to existing conditions, those best able to maneuver within the social and political currents will inevitably outperform those who cannot. Those running the program are ill-equipped to define it’s success, being part of the same regime which routinely delivers bottom-of-the-barrel slop.
- reliabilityguy 7mo ago> Cynicism with governance not unjustified in Ireland What do you mean?
- relistan 7mo agoWhile some things are doing great, there's a not insignificant amount of inertia in government for the last decade. This is actively being discussed in the Irish press. And Ireland has a long history of cronyism. I suspected (author clarified below) that is what was leading to the cynicism in the original post.
- 7mo ago
- the_wolo 7mo agoI am really fond of countries creating public wealth by supporting art like this. Imagine how beautiful everything around of us could be if more were to create art instead, e.g. denying people their cancer therapy at an insurance. I yearn for that future…
- antisthenes 7mo agoWe're going to need basic income for all people whose jobs have been absolutely gutted by LLMs.
- luplex 7mo agoI think this is a great idea, and a good example of a government that's willing to experiment with creative policy ideas. Maybe UBI works for some recipients when it's clearly time-limited and the recipients have a clear way to building a stable income, but are bottlenecked on time and capital. I think artists are a good fit for such a program.
- some_random 7mo agoIreland redirecting some of the wealth they have parasitically stole from the rest of the world to reboot serfdom is a fascinating development
- almosthere 7mo agoBad idea
- slibhb 7mo agoWhat's better? Artists competing for the mass public, artists trying to please individual rich patrons, or artists trying to placate some government commission? I think a mix is fine. But there are disadvantages if you weigh too heavily on the latter two. In Europe, there's already quite a lot of government subsidies for art. Try finding a British or French movie that doesn't open by announcing its connection with some government subsidy program. While I quite like quite a lot of what Europe produces (especially cinema), in the long run I suspect it won't be sustainable. Whereas the free(r) market approach of e.g. the US and Japan will end up ahead.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- johncoltrane 7mo agoWell, I don't depend on my art to sustain my livelihood. This allows me to do whatever I want without a care in the world for marketability. Much better than all three choices combined if you ask me.
- camgunz 7mo agoHN: Don't worry about AI, UBI will fix it. Also HN: UBI is a scam and no one will want to contribute to society.
- ProllyInfamous 7mo ago>"...go into the arts. I'm not kidding. The arts are not a way to make a living. They are a very human way of making life more bearable. Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possibly can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something." >—Kurt Vonnegut