Artsy people are awesome at economics

[Asher]

I propose the governments increase their arts subsidies 1000 fold. We're looking at trillions of dollars in profits.

[Al B. Sure!]

I wonder how these theaters would do without the subsidies. I mean they seem to be generating billions of dollars in revenues. It's kind of like an argument for not subsidizing them.

[Wiglaf]

No you idiot. The subsidies go to the production of the plays and the purchasing of the exquisite paintings. The profits are either stored in the stock market where they can become even larger, or go to fund other needy causes like the British military.

[Asher]

[Hauldren Collider]

Wiglaf

[The Emperor Fabulous]

From an initially small outlay, we reap huge rewards. So why put down what is, to put it at its basest, a hugely productive cash-cow?

Due to this being the arts, its probably a fabulous dancing cash-cow.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

The answer, I think, is to make it more market orientated by giving individuals, corporations, or city governments tax incentives to fund art especially public art. That way local people get to decide which projects to fund.

That's sort of how a lot of art is currently funded. Some more artistically-inclined cities and municipalities lure artists by setting up housing credits and tax breaks, while private citizens and corporations establish grants and make up the bulk of financing on both specific projects and specific artists, depending on what goals they have in mind.

There are still very few places where you can make a significant amount of money doing art, but there are a lot of places where you can do enough to live a pretty nice life.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Well government funding for the arts only really gets criticized when complete crap (we all know what it is; no need for the aesthetics and nature of art debate) is subsidized.

You're misunderstanding subsidized art. People don't usually give an artist money for a specific project. They fund an artist so the artist produces results. Sometimes, they're not the results you want. The government is even more so about funding the artist, not the project.

That is problematic. The government arbitrarily deciding on things getting funding (who decides this stuff anyway?)... There should be some means for public involvement even if it's market forces from a more market-oriented art culture.

Everything you said in this paragraph shows that you don't seem to understand the economic side of art.

Although marketable art also tends to be crappy (Lady Gaga?)

This is an opinion, though. You're not into her, but she makes millions of dollars doing something akin to performance art. I'm not into her either, but in some circles she's becoming more than a pop star.

[Al B. Sure!]

I suppose the whole funding the artist not the project thing makes sense. I mean there was a time when the patron financed a particular project a la the Pope for something like the Sistine Chapel but not so much anymore I guess. I mean with architecture, it still works like that but not for a painter typically.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

It works that way with film as well, and a lot of bigger theater - goals are established and an end result is expected. But those that are financed by major corporations are done so on a business model, whereas indy films don't usually turn a profit, and aren't meant to, and local theaters hopefully make enough to carry to the next show.

Sculptors, painters, performance artists, professional clowns, etc. on the other hand are, in essence, paid to be creative. And a lot of that isn't just what they produce: its networking. So someone who has lain the groundwork of making respected art and being respectable in the community may on occasion step outside social norms, but is not on the whole un-fundable.

Also, never underestimate what a tourist will spend their money on.

[MRT144]

Our CVB in Seattle get's 8 mil in funding and turns out billions in economic impact.

[Al B. Sure!]

Could that 8 million have contributed to keeping the Sonics?

[KrazyHorse]

Our CVB in Seattle get's 8 mil in funding and turns out billions in economic impact.

[MRT144]

You're right; Zillions.

[MRT144]

Could that 8 million have contributed to keeping the Sonics?

Why would we want to keep a ****ty team that contributes NOTHING to Seattle?