The title compares all the money given out by Kickstarter (including non-art projects) to NEA's budget, which as of now is not a fair comparison. However, I think this is a technicality, since at the rate KS is growing, the comparison will be valid very soon.
The second apples and oranges point is stronger though: Look at the types of projects that NEA funds, e.g. translation projects in 2011 (http://www.nea.gov/grants/recent/12grants/LitTranslation.htm...): although the grants are tiny (~$10K) I don't think these are types of things that would have shined in the KS environment. So NEA is doing this as a public service, funding people who wouldn't have been funded otherwise. This is important. I remember Tarkovsky's lamenting the fact that his film The Mirror was not understood by the people so he had difficulty getting his other projects funded by Goskino (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Tarkovsky#Film_career_in...: "From the beginning the film was not well received by Soviet authorities due to its content and its perceived elitist nature.") That's why the state has to be in the business of funding arts, to protect artists from the "tyranny of mass taste" (unfortunately, in Russia this worked backwards).
Now, after having said all that, let us once again emphasize the fresh approach KS brought to arts funding. I bet if/when they thought about KS before, the NEA people (most likely they haven't heard about KS, as these are not exactly cutting edge Internet technology people) they chuckled about the naivete of its approach, thinking it a fad (forget about NEA, I thought like this myself!). After millions of dollars of arts funding, they'll probably take the crowd sourcing approach more seriously. Patron-based art funding is hundreds of years old, the difference here is the number of patrons backing each project.
Popularly accessible art can be funded by things like KS, or simply by the market more generally. Art that is not (currently) popularly accessible -- stuff that is either at the frontiers, or is making a contribution that is not immediately evident to a lay person -- cannot. Is this kind of art valuable? Of course it is. Today's avante garde is tomorrow's pop art, just as today's cutting edge science is tomorrow's consumer technology (but not all of it.)
What does this do to the whole "but art will cease to exist if artists can't have absurd monopoly rights over copyrighted material" argument, which the MAFIAA seem to love so much?
If people are willing to fund arts regardless of legal obligation. Then the number one pillar sustaining the copyright "morals" gets easily destroyed. Crowdfunding demonstrates that if we completely remove copyright laws: art will survive.
> Crowdfunding demonstrates that if we completely remove copyright laws: art will survive.
Yes, though I think all that was sufficient to reach that conclusion was all the art that lived long before copyright laws ever existed in the first place.
(And I hope copyright lovers admit that Shakespeare, if there was copyright in his day, would have probably created fewer works, not more. In fact it's possible he and others produced so many works precisely because there was no copy protection!)
Just my opinion, but the state should have never been in the business of supporting the arts. Let those who want to support the arts do so privately. Kickstarter proves that good projects can get private funding directly. I love to see this kind of organic privatization.
It's just your opinion, in an excerpt from the article Kickstarter co-founder Yancey Strickler stated:
As Strickler explained, the milestone is “good” in the sense that it means that Kickstarter may now reach a point where it will funnel as much money to the arts as the federal agency primarily responsible for supporting them, effectively doubling the amount of art that can get funded in the country.
Fun fact, the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs is the largest cultural funding agency in the nation, with an expense budget in Fiscal Year 2012 of $152 million, larger than NEA.
Does anyone really consider the NEA a significant source of funding? The vast majority of "artists" produce things that people happily pay money for, and the notion of subsidy is unnecessary.
The idea that what the NEA funds is "real art" and the associated disdain for commercially viable art is in my opinion fairly perverse.
Kickstarter provides for the following categories:
Art, Comics, Dance, Design, Fashion, Film&Video, Food, Games, Music, Photography, Publishing, Theater, and Technology.
Every one of those except "Technology" strikes me as art, and even a few of the technology projects. So while Kickstarter may not be all arts projects, it is primarily arts projects.
[+] [-] Jun8|14 years ago|reply
The second apples and oranges point is stronger though: Look at the types of projects that NEA funds, e.g. translation projects in 2011 (http://www.nea.gov/grants/recent/12grants/LitTranslation.htm...): although the grants are tiny (~$10K) I don't think these are types of things that would have shined in the KS environment. So NEA is doing this as a public service, funding people who wouldn't have been funded otherwise. This is important. I remember Tarkovsky's lamenting the fact that his film The Mirror was not understood by the people so he had difficulty getting his other projects funded by Goskino (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Tarkovsky#Film_career_in...: "From the beginning the film was not well received by Soviet authorities due to its content and its perceived elitist nature.") That's why the state has to be in the business of funding arts, to protect artists from the "tyranny of mass taste" (unfortunately, in Russia this worked backwards).
Now, after having said all that, let us once again emphasize the fresh approach KS brought to arts funding. I bet if/when they thought about KS before, the NEA people (most likely they haven't heard about KS, as these are not exactly cutting edge Internet technology people) they chuckled about the naivete of its approach, thinking it a fad (forget about NEA, I thought like this myself!). After millions of dollars of arts funding, they'll probably take the crowd sourcing approach more seriously. Patron-based art funding is hundreds of years old, the difference here is the number of patrons backing each project.
[+] [-] feralchimp|14 years ago|reply
Many would argue that "taking taxpayer money to fund something that no one would pay for" is a coherent definition for "public disservice."
[+] [-] cyrus_|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|14 years ago|reply
Why shouldn't an artist?
[+] [-] vibrunazo|14 years ago|reply
If people are willing to fund arts regardless of legal obligation. Then the number one pillar sustaining the copyright "morals" gets easily destroyed. Crowdfunding demonstrates that if we completely remove copyright laws: art will survive.
[+] [-] simonsarris|14 years ago|reply
Yes, though I think all that was sufficient to reach that conclusion was all the art that lived long before copyright laws ever existed in the first place.
(And I hope copyright lovers admit that Shakespeare, if there was copyright in his day, would have probably created fewer works, not more. In fact it's possible he and others produced so many works precisely because there was no copy protection!)
[+] [-] adestefan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kingkawn|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DLarsen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prolepunk|14 years ago|reply
As Strickler explained, the milestone is “good” in the sense that it means that Kickstarter may now reach a point where it will funnel as much money to the arts as the federal agency primarily responsible for supporting them, effectively doubling the amount of art that can get funded in the country.
[+] [-] linhir|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|14 years ago|reply
The idea that what the NEA funds is "real art" and the associated disdain for commercially viable art is in my opinion fairly perverse.
[+] [-] guan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcherm|14 years ago|reply
Every one of those except "Technology" strikes me as art, and even a few of the technology projects. So while Kickstarter may not be all arts projects, it is primarily arts projects.
[+] [-] grannyg00se|14 years ago|reply
"Kickstarter does restrict the kinds of projects it will allow to be posted on its website to “projects with a creative purpose.” "
So it could be said that all of Kickstarter projects are in fact art projects.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]