<story><title>Who Pays for the Arts?</title><url>https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a62394281/who-pays-for-the-arts/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>gillesjacobs</author><text>In Belgium, it is relatively easy to get &amp;quot;artist-statute&amp;quot; which is a subsidized higher monthly welfare income (Basic Income for artists). Belgium runs on the &amp;quot;subsidize-and-conquer&amp;quot; paradigm, the tax burden is one of the highest in the world. The government keeps lower class happy with welfare, the upperclass with culture and mainly business subsidies. The productive middleclass is effectively squeezed.&lt;p&gt;The art sector here is mostly publicly funded. This too has advantages for our gov: no artists will criticize the subsidizer of their lifestyle, so no real anti-authoritarian culture takes hold. Don&amp;#x27;t bite the hand that feeds.&lt;p&gt;You&amp;#x27;d think Belgium would have some impressive world-class artists, since so many can work unbothered by the oppressive forces of market trends. Not surprisingly, mediocrity, irrelevance and low-output are the norm.</text></comment>
<story><title>Who Pays for the Arts?</title><url>https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a62394281/who-pays-for-the-arts/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>julianeon</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m reading a book called Culture Crash, which is relevant here. I also read Sinykin&amp;#x27;s Big Fiction a while back, so you could say I&amp;#x27;ve been reading abou the culture industry.&lt;p&gt;Culture Crash makes this interesting point: Did you know there used to be widely read, culturally relevant, AND Nobel Prize worthy (like actual contenders to win), poets? Unimaginable now but true in living memory. They didn&amp;#x27;t even have to be attached to a University, financially speaking. Like your male or female co-worker might hear that such an such a poet was coming out with a new book, and buy it, and then for a few weeks the cultural conversation would be dominated by this - a book of poetry. Which people 50 years from now would be reading in lit classes.&lt;p&gt;The general point of these books (summarizing a lot here) is that the cultural infrastructure has been falling away for decades now, and there isn&amp;#x27;t much left. At this point literature has been &amp;quot;captured&amp;quot; by the University, but it&amp;#x27;s for a good reason: you can&amp;#x27;t survive as a fiction writer without it. People complain &amp;quot;but they&amp;#x27;re so insular&amp;quot; but the truth is: they don&amp;#x27;t have an alternative. You can work at a University or you can not be a full-time writer: that&amp;#x27;s your choice.&lt;p&gt;This is true of other industries too. Music: you used to be able to support yourself as a studio musician. You might also be the guy who was the resident expert on classical music for the neighborhood at the store, who would recommend operas conducted by Karajan and the best recordings from Deutsche Grammophone (I remember those guys). Art: you could paint signs or design posters, back when there was a real demand. Writing: you could write for the alternative weeklies (I&amp;#x27;d read those) or be a regular journalist, writing as little as one story a day. Movies: you could be a video clerk (I also remember this). And those &amp;#x27;subcultures&amp;#x27; were incubators. Quentin Tarantino graduated from the video store in a sense. Who can follow him, if there are no video stores anymore?&lt;p&gt;So this crisis in nonprofit funding really is coming at the end of a much longer crisis in the arts in general. It should be seen in that context.</text></comment>