As Ireland’s $1,500-a-month basic income pilot program for creatives nears its end in February, officials have to answer a simple question: Is it worth it?

With four months to go, they say the answer is yes.

Earlier this month, Ireland’s government announced its 2026 budget, which includes “a successor to the pilot Basic Income Scheme for the Arts to begin next year” among its expenditures.

Ireland is just one of many places experimenting with guaranteed basic income programs, which provide recurring, unrestricted payments to people in a certain demographic. These programs differ from a universal basic income, which would provide payments for an entire population.

  • Ithorian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I just dont get this thing with “artists”, if you cant get people to buy your art, buy your albuns, buy a ticket to your show then you are not an artist, you are just an entertainer of yourself! If my company cant sell their product will the government give us 1500£ too? its the same thing, if my product is shit i wont sell, period

    • rmrf@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      A ton of influential and world renowned artists were very unsuccessful during their life.

    • BilSabab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      most people don’t do art to make a living. it’s a fun bonus and it is absolutely OK. Now when you’re a professional commercial artist who does commissions and other stuff - yeah, that’s a problem. However, you need to keep in mind that the infrastructure for culture commodification (making money from art) has been broken since the late 90s. There were short periods when the emergence of new tech made it seem like it is almost possible but the window was always too short to capitalize.

    • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I’m not even sure if clarification came come to someone who’s perceived view of “the arts” is already so negatively embedded into a capitalistic hellscape. I was fortunate enough to have an upbringing around artists and schools that encourage expression through the crafts (even in the south, it was a strange/beautiful time).

      My suggestion would be to look into Graffiti art if you’re trying to understand the non-commercialized sectors and the impacts they can have on society (link). It’s not always about the work itself, but the inspiration it may cause others as well.

      If that doesn’t help, try to think of it in terms of another non-paid sector. Should the government promote FOSS creators with an income if the output improves society as a whole? This is an investment into a society you wish to see, such like education, not a financial statement which needs to show profits at the end of the quarter.

      Biggest difference, if your company has a profitable year… who gets the extra income? An artists effect isn’t valued in “capital produced” unless your an art dealer/corporation which is a whole different sector you might be confusing with an actual “artist”. Art begets art, art inspires and motivates dreams and visions, it’s such a long philosophical debate you can see it being drawn out by Plato in The Republic if you had the joy of taking any intro-philosophy classes (you should look into it, you might agree with some of the cases presented).

      Lastly, an abundance of art has always been controlled by the wealthy (might be why you view it as a commercialized product).

      Monarchy and aristocracy

      In previous centuries the power and wealth of monarchs, emperors and other supreme rulers gave them enormous influence over the employment of artists and changes in artistic taste and style. Understandably their portraits are the largest and grandest, and their palaces are the most richly decorated with expensive paintings.

      Taxing said wealth, and allowing the people to freely express themselves without the moderation of the wealthy is a step forward from what was previously and currently being used for the artistic pipeline (you must produce the most valued or commercialize-able creations to continue existing). If the monarchs and wealthy of the world can’t convince you that art is important (their art in this instance), I’m not sure how to reach you if it’s just a stubborn personal take you refuse to budge from.

    • webp@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      So an artists worth is determined by external, financial factors? What?

      • Ithorian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        is determined by results! If you have a song and no one want to ear it are you an artist?

        • UltraMagnus@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Well, there are plenty of famous artists who only became famous after they died. Contemporary popularity doesn’t guarantee historic/cultural impact.

          I’m not aware of the specific requirements of this program, but Iteland also has a case for cultural preservation, particularly with works in the Irish language, which may not have the international appeal necessary to make a good profit but are important for intrinsic reasons to Ireland.

          There’s also the case to be made that in order to become a great artist, you must first be a bad artist - and there aren’t that many jobs for internships/apprenticeships in the arts, especially as some of the more “basic” jobs (cheap graphic arts, copywriters, muzak, etc.) are snapped up by AI.

          I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about what an artist must have in order to qualify for something like this. I would also be concerned with “antiestablishment” works possibly being excluded.

          • Ithorian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            think there is an interesting discussion to be had about what an artist must have in order to qualify for something like this.

            Yes, thats just my point, i agree in some help if, and only if, the artist do some kind of work around their comunity or some pro bono kind of jobs, i dont know how to explain it exactly. But i cant agree pay to an artist that is trying to sell millions of records or have millions of viewers of any kind, because thats not art, its a product he/she is selling. Its and interesting debate indeed