top | item 46986250

(no title)

mantas | 18 days ago

> 325 Euros/week sounds like basic rent & food & transportation. Not artsy projects with enough spare Euros for someone to skim serious money off from.

Exactly. But it's a nice addition for „project-conscious“ crowd who can add one more income stream.

> Providing "free" studios, supplies, instruments, etc. sounds like a scheme to give politicians more photo ops and bureaucrats more jobs

Some libraries here started providing free studios with some basic instruments. I hear it was a hit with long wait times. It's awesome for artsy people who want to get together and jam with friends on saturday morning. Artsy people neighbours also love it that they don't have to hear said jams too :)

It's also great for kids who want to give it a shot. It's easier to come in and find some instruments than try to get some used stuff just to play.

I'm all for enabling people to do artsy stuff en-masse. The more people give it a shot, the better. Results don't matter, playing and creating something (no matter how crappy) is important.

IMO „mass-playing-with-art“ has much better ROI than handouts to let a selected crop of people pretend they're living off their art.

discuss

order

bell-cot|17 days ago

Yes, supporting en-masse stuff is important. Artsy or not - playgrounds, parks, football pitches, and other things count. Or spaces for civic choral groups and painting clubs, repairing old church organs, ...

For the arts, free studios & such are both en-masse support, and a wider part of the talent funnel (vs. basic incomes).

Biggest problem that I see with basic incomes is in selecting who gets those. The article notes they'll pick randomly from 8,000 applicants - but there's judgement and selection somewhere. Otherwise, the scheme would implode politically after giving money to folks whose "art" was offensive graffiti, or appreciating expensive whiskey, or whatever.

mantas|17 days ago

That is a problem too. Offensive art is art too. I'd even argue that offensive art in many cases is better than non-offensive one. But yes, I guess at best „politically correct offensive“ artists will get approved.