Saturday, December 10, 2016

Housing for Starving Artists

Since I am a STEM / business / buy a nice house guy pretty much through and through, I can not relate to this chosen artistic life style.  I figure it is good to pursue your passions "after you work to pay the bills".

And the idea that someone else is responsible for you choosing to live in a warehouse, surrounded by paint thinner and other highly flammable substances is amazing.  Thoughts?

Slate Blame the Housing Crisis for Deaths
USA Today Space for Artists

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's been abundantly clear over the years that you don't understand that humans are not humans without the Arts. Society is not Society without the Arts. Civilization is not Civilization without the Arts.

Many people do not want to live in your dreary vision of a world.

Joel

John said...

In the distant past artists needed to be good enough so that benefactors would support their work.

Today it seems many people think they should be able to be artists whether they are good or terrible at it.

Hopefully we can avoid spending too many tax dollars to support the dreams of the unskilled artists.

John said...

By the way, one of my daughters draws very well. And another plays the clarinet and tenor sax. And all three were exposed to dancing, art and many instruments because they had a generous supporter. (ie Me and the Mrs)

The question is not if I value art, but why should gov't take money from the traditional workers to subsidize the "struggling artists"? (ie subsidized health insurance, subsidize housing, food stamps, etc)

Is their dream any more important than that of the struggling tax payer who would prefer to use their money elsewhere?

Anonymous said...

That's a lot of words, but do you understand the NEED for Artists in human society?

Joel

John said...

What are your requirements to be an "artist"?

I have spent my whole career creating or improving equipment all of the world. This equipment has helped people move all over the world faster, safer and more comfortably. Does that count?

Artist Defined:
- one who professes and practices an imaginative art
- a person skilled in one of the fine arts
- a skilled performer; especially
- one who is adept at something

jerrye92002 said...

This is a very interesting subject. I have long argued that a proper function of government is to enable the arts, but not by funding individual or collective artists. For example, if some city decided that they needed an art gallery, or a music Hall, it would not be unreasonable – that is, a proper function of government – to allocate taxpayer funding (a capital expenditure) to build the building. At that point however the building and its operation should be turned over to a private, nonprofit organization (obviously prearranged long before groundbreaking). It would then be up to that organization to survive financially by some combination of donations and admissions fees. Display art that people like and you survive and perhaps thrive; display art that people do not like and the gallery either closes or changes its ways. It's the same with artists. Produce something you can sell and you eat. Produce crap and you starve for your art, but don't expect the government to pay you just because you call yourself an artist.

Let me tell you a story. If I repeat myself, too bad. We had a fellow in our shop, a good employee for over 20 years. He was always on time, did good work and worked the full day. He was pretty quiet and never went out for a beer after work. He wasn't antisocial but he simply did not socialize with those at work. Somehow we learned that he was leading a double life. He was working for us to put food on the table; that was his living. But at night he would go home and practice his violin for three or four hours; that was his life. He aspired to be a concert violinist. Knowing that, everyone seemed very supportive of his dream because he wasn't asking the rest of us to subsidize it for him, and that is exactly how it ought to be.

Now as for these unfortunate folks in San Francisco, it's what happens when you have a far left government that ignores the law of supply and demand among others. Someone could make money with low income housing except it is not allowed.

The other problem I see is that we are obviously on the ragged edge of a new age in which my violinist example cannot exist. There will be fewer jobs to support part-time artists, and more free time for people to BE artists, while there are fewer jobs that would support patrons of the arts. The fictional world of Star Trek has not yet manifested.

Anonymous said...

"...he wasn't asking the rest of us to subsidize it for him, and that is exactly how it ought to be."

I think we agree, in that I too find subsidies for corporations objectionable.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Corporate subsidies (like Solyndra), yes. Individuals also. But there is an unbridgeable gap between letting individuals or corporations keep the money they earn rather than paying it in taxes and handing those monies to those who did not earn it.

John said...

Joel,
You haven't told us what "artist" means to you?

Jerry,
I truly don't think folks on the Left understand or agree that there is a difference between a deduction, and a check / service from the government.

The Carrier deal is a good example. If Carrier had moved the 700 jobs, Indiana would have received NO Revenues and may have incurred costs due to newly unemployed. After the deal, Indiana is still receiving far more than it would have. The government is not sending a check to Carrier from other people's money.

Anonymous said...

"You haven't told us what "artist" means to you?"

It doesn't matter what I tell you. You won't understand, you'll make an argument that is irrelevant, and you'll think very highly of your own logic, all while entirely missing the point.

Joel

John said...

Then try to explain...

"the NEED for Artists in human society?"

from your perspective...

By the way last night I attended my daughter's Strings and Jazz concert...

I like Jazz better.

John said...

I think we both agree that art is important, however we likely disagree with who should pay for the effort / lifestyle.

jerrye92002 said...

Unkind and irrelevant, Joel. If you don't have a good answer, or dispute the premise of the question, or just don't want to answer, that's fine. Trying to dismiss the response you get before you even get it doesn't further the discussion. John has given his definition, and I think it is pretty good though multi-faceted. That is, a single clear definition is best, but not possible in this case, so a distinction needs to be made between those "artists" who we expect to get public funding and those we do not. Where do you draw that line?

Anonymous said...

"Corporate subsidies (like Solyndra), yes. Individuals also. But there is an unbridgeable gap between letting individuals or corporations keep the money they earn rather than paying it in taxes and handing those monies to those who did not earn it."

Everybody love to bring up Solyndra, but conveniently forget about Tesla, who paid back their $465 Million loan 10 years early or the $30 Billion in loans with only a 2% default rate. And the program is making money while investing in forward-looking technologies.

I would say that is a net benefit to society.

Now, can we do it the same way for Artists? I don't know. If we support Artists, perhaps that offers the next Michelangelo, Baryshnikov, Savion Glover, Pollack, le Corbusier, or Lin-Manuel Miranda the chance to be seen and to change the world.

Will every Artist that is subsidized be a success? Unlikely. But remember, for every Solyndra, there's a Tesla and a number of others that are less well-known, but successful.

The organization that I perform with has, over the past several years, given performances in small cities and towns all over the State of Minnesota, performing with and for thousands of High School students. Our organization could not have done that on our own. Thankfully, the people of Minnesota, in their wisdom, enshrined support for the Arts into the State Constitution through the Legacy Amendment, thus further enriching the lives of its people and the great Arts culture that has been nurtured here.

I would say that's a net benefit to society.

YMMV

Joel

Anonymous said...

Please Read This


Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, you make some good points. But for corporations, I do not believe government should be picking winners and losers, whether in direct subsidies, tax breaks, or other special interest measures like sugar tariffs. Taxes for corporations should be lowered across the board, taxes on investments ought to be severely reduced or eliminated, and then let companies compete in a free market. Heaven knows windmills and solar panels aren't going to compete without huge subsidies that do NOT go to advanced pelletized-coal or garbage-to-plasma generators or lithium fusion.

I, too, got one of those Arts grants, and it was absolutely embarrassing. One of the requirements is you MUST write your legislature and demand more money go into that huge slush fund that /supposedly/ went to "clean water." The other thing was that there is a fair amount of that money goes to things that either don't need doing at all (except that some "artist" wants to do it) or that don't draw enough people to support them. We do, and only went after it because it capital money and it was there. As I said, I don't begrudge government doing capital projects for art venues, but support for individual artists becomes highly questionable-- too much crap passing for art.

Thanks for your contribution to the arts. Not sure I approve of the taxpayers subsidizing you, but we also work with high schools and donate our time.

Joel Fischer said...

"...too much crap passing for art."

From your perspective.

Joel

Anonymous said...

'One of the requirements is you MUST write your legislature and demand more money go into that huge slush fund that /supposedly/ went to "clean water."'

I don't know what you're suggesting here. The percentages that go to each fund are constitutionally determined.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, exactly so. And that is what your fascinating piece says. Suppose this pianist performs some bad jazz, or sings hip-hop to an audience that simply does not care for that particular form of music? It does NOT "touch their soul" and perhaps even offends it. Why should the audience OR the State subsidize it?

An artist who creates or performs only to his own whims and tastes is not an artist, by that definition. An artist who tries to shock-- and there are many-- doesn't deserve any public support. Art is supposed to be uplifting and much of it is. That will eventually find support on its own.

Artists being paid by people who like their art, great, wonderful. Artists being paid by government regardless of what they produce need to find a job instead.

jerrye92002 said...

Perhaps I'm not being clear. Let's see if an anecdote helps.

One year we applied for an Arts grant and got beat out by an inner city choir that was doing great work above and beyond going around singing for folks. We all agreed that was a better use of the public money and later made a donation to them ourselves.

jerrye92002 said...

"The percentages that go to each fund are constitutionally determined." That may be, but that is not how it was sold to the public, nor is that necessarily the "right" percentage to effectively address the various needs.

John said...

Legacy Fund Site

I still can't believe we passed it... But it was pretty clear.
"The Legacy Amendment increases the state sales tax by three-eighths of one percent beginning on July 1, 2009 and continuing until 2034. The additional sales tax revenue is distributed into four funds as follows: 33 percent to the clean water fund; 33 percent to the outdoor heritage fund; 19.75 percent to the arts and cultural heritage fund; and 14.25 percent to the parks and trails fund."

Anonymous said...

I consider myself to be somewhat Art-literate, but there is a great quantity of Art I don't understand or that I don't see the appeal of. Does that make it not Art?

Joel

Anonymous said...

"An artist who creates or performs only to his own whims and tastes is not an artist, by that definition. An artist who tries to shock-- and there are many-- doesn't deserve any public support. Art is supposed to be uplifting and much of it is. That will eventually find support on its own."

You don't think there is room for Art to be challenging? Just because it may offend a person's sensibilities does not mean it is not Art. Perhaps your sensibilities need challenging in order to see a different perspective, one which the Artist is trying to get you to see.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

I think there is a difference, someplace on the spectrum, between art that people don't understand, art that people do not like, and art intended to offend most people. I like the old masters, find Impressionists and even Picasso interesting, and I even "get" some modern art like the Chicago Bean. It is a matter of intent of the artist, in these cases to convey a moment or feeling. Then there's Andres Serrano. I believe a good measure of art is its commercial value, in the sense that someone is willing to spend time or money on it. Therefore if the intent of the artist is to offend the vast majority of potential "customers," I don't think it is art. For government to spend money on art it must be something that appeals to our higher natures and improves society.

Here is where we have to debate the artistry that goes into that black velvet Elvis or the dogs playing poker. :-)