Why would you subsidize art that virtually nobody cares about? You might as well subsidize every hobby in existence.
I'm pretty sure even most socialists would agree with this - even those who want to abolish money. If your art isn't valuable to society, you'll get treated like someone who digs holes and then fills them all day.
Now, art which is widely appreciated but still has trouble getting funded might be another matter (because they're e.g. directed at a demographic that doesn't have much money), but most of the people who can't live off their art definitely don't fall into this category - they simply aren't popular.
You subsidise the stuff that people do care about but isn’t getting made because it doesn’t make money as easily. Particularly in markets that skew towards very few people being able to afford to participate.
Publically funded broadcasting for example has been phenomenally successful.
I don't think this disagrees with me at all? I even explicitly mention that example of popular art that still can't fund it self. That's not what they and the article are talking about though.
Becaus the art itself is secondary to the quality of life a virbrant arts community gives to a city/town. Even an untallented art and ary collectives create a richer community. We dont need parks either, they are quality of life investments.
Why wouldn't the same apply to literally any hobby community? Or do you think that people who go bowling should be paid a living wage for it too?
The created art is simply how the vast, vast majority of people in a city will interact with a local community of artists and thus how their quality of life is increased by their existence. A group of e.g. untalented musicians will simply have a terrible quality of live/cost ratio. We don't fund parks simply because they're a quality of life investment - but because they're a _good_ investment.
I'm pretty sure even most socialists would agree with this - even those who want to abolish money. If your art isn't valuable to society, you'll get treated like someone who digs holes and then fills them all day.
Now, art which is widely appreciated but still has trouble getting funded might be another matter (because they're e.g. directed at a demographic that doesn't have much money), but most of the people who can't live off their art definitely don't fall into this category - they simply aren't popular.