[jcarrano]

"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.

[JKCalhoun]

The 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.

[christkv]

Thats 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]

Oh, wow. The absolute worst thing that could happen to this sort of program would be for artists to make the decisions about who qualifies.

[bagacrap]

Must 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.