My objection to this is that you're taking money away from teachers, waiters, taxi drivers, etc and giving it to artists, as though artists are somehow more virtuous people. It doesn't seem fair.
Any not to any artists, but only to those the government bureaucrats recognize as being artists. I doubt they'll be paying anybody to write computer programs with artistic merit.
That's obviously going to depend on the specific organization doing the funding. But I'd imagine you'd need to make some effort in contextualizing your work to the "art world" in such a way that makes coherent sense.
If it's just some private art fund that has their own arbitrary view of what art has merit, then who cares? But if it's the government taxing me, an artist, so they can give my money to some other artist, then the standard for what counts matters quite a bit more. The "art world" is highly nepotistic and is basically a playground for the rich to piss away their lives while feeling good about themselves. Art is something anyone can and should do, but being recognized as an artist isn't meritocratic, and I doubt getting government bureaucrats involved helps that at all.
Maybe understand it as a conceptual question instead of a question about Ireland. Only the Irish have a right to care about where Irish taxes go, we're discussing the concept.
So, who would you fund as an artist? Who would you tell "no, you're not an artist, you don't qualify." Can you acknowledge that this is a difficult question without calling people argumentative?
In practice it's really not that difficult of a question. "Artists" have a portfolio of work and are usually (but not always) engaged with organizations related to the arts: galleries, nonprofits, etc.
If you show up and say, "this random obscure software thing I'm doing is art," without any effort at portraying yourself as an artist, working in the arts, writing about your work, showing it in galleries or online, etc., then no, you probably aren't going to get funding. But you'd have to be pretty clueless about the entire process to think this is viable in the first place. These organizations are funding people that are socially "artists", and are not interested in some abstract debate about the meaning of art and then funding people that fit that definition.
There are plenty of people doing obscure software-related things (usually described as digital art) that are absolutely considered artists for programs like this. But they are deliberately engaged with the process, so the supposed problem alluded to here doesn't really exist in practice.
From what you describe it really sounds like outsider artists aren't welcome and to get the money you have to be socially engaged with the nepotistic "art community". This is highly problematic to me, as I believe that going through creative artistic processes is something everybody benefits from and we shouldn't be reinforcing a dichotomy between artists and non-artists.
I don’t mean to be rude or dismissive here, but I really don’t think you have much information about this at all. We’re talking about hundreds of different organizations with various different metrics for funding.
You’d learn more by actually researching them yourself and not having arguments here.
I don't think it's a worthwhile conceptual question. It was spelled out in detail on the official website; while it's completely valid to discuss and dispute the criteria for inclusion, abstracting it away for the purpose of argument is just shit-stirring.
Wouldn't your reasoning just apply to basically every situation, until you arrive at the most "virtuous" people receiving money?
I don't interpret this action by the government as bestowing virtue upon artists. It's just a way to fund something considered important culturally. It's not supposed to be fair or just, it's just a way to ensure that culturally-valued things are maintained without having to rely on the market to fund them.
Well, I think it only follows if the reason the artists are getting money is because they are virtuous. Which they aren't. Just because someone is getting funding doesn't imply that the reason is because they are deemed more virtuous than someone else. Usually it just implies that they are doing a specific thing that someone wants done.
The idea is that there’s practices that are good for society that fall outside of market value, and these practices should be protected or they die. Some things cannot survive in the market.
> My objection to this is that you're taking money away from teachers, waiters, taxi drivers, etc and giving it to artists, as though artists are somehow more virtuous people. It doesn't seem fair.
Why do people remember fairness and frugality only when money are spent to directly help those in need?
I didn't see anyone complaining when money are funnelled to industries (e.g. Big Ag) instead of individuals.
We don't know each other but big ag and programs that literally pay farmers to destroy wildlife habitat and turn plants in to meat (a highly ecologically destructive practice) are bad, and we should not do them. The CAP is horrendous policy from the EU.
It wasn't personal (sorry if that was not clear), and Big Ag was just an example.
My point is that somehow it is always some modest direct relief initiative that will spark endless discussions, while multi-million (or shall I say billion?) subsidies directed to already filthy-rich corporations go with zero public discussion and scrutiny.
