I think you've described the problem (or one of them) very well.
We've seen how misinformation -- including ideas that were once fringe, believed only by a minority of cranks -- spreads and becomes acceptable, becomes a "legitimate alternative opinion".
We've seen, too, how hostile states, populists within, spread falsehoods to sew havoc and division.
My only hope, really, is that I think some of the younger generation are slightly more alert than some Gen X and millennials (my own generation) as to the dangers of misinformation online.
I wish I knew the solution too. Like you, I feel quite helpless even in terms of what to WANT. Can the Twitters of the world be regulated? If so, are we as a society able to agree on how it should be regulated, or are we too divided to agree on anything?
I have a cushy job, especially when I compare it to how many other people earn money, but it's still a job rather than a passion. The social aspect is all well and good, but much (but not all) of it in a company is actually quite fake.
Given most assassinations on US politicians (including attempted) targeted Democrat politicians in 2025, I would have different expectations to your last point.
I've been thinking a lot lately, challenging some of my long-held assumptions...
Big tech, the current AI trend, social media websites serving up rage bait and misinformation (not to imply this is all they do, or that they are ALL bad), the current political climate and culture...
In my view, all of these are symptoms, and the cause is the perverse, largely unchallenged neoliberal world in which the West has spent the last 30-40 years (at least) living in.
Profit maximising comes before everything else. (Large) Corporate interests are almost never challenged. The result? Deliberately amoral public policy that serves the rich and powerful.
There are oases in this desert (which is, indeed, not inevitable), thankfully. As the author mentioned, there's FOSS. There's indie-created games/movies. There's everyday goodness between decent people.
Between River and Sea by Dervla Murphy (her final published book). It (and admittedly a few other things) completely altered my view on the relevant issue, and despite being a very serious topic, the book is enjoyable and heavy considering.
If it's impossible to measure art's value then there can't be any cutoff point at which we stop funding ever more art. Anyone who attempts to put a number on its value is treated as an overly rational boor but we obviously can't just devote the entirety of society's resources to creating more of it.
Some art produced today is good, some bad. Subjectivity will mean people disagree. It has ever been so.
But the idea that art / artists don't require money isn't my read of history.
When you go to an art museum in, say, London, you'll find lots of fantastic paintings depicting religious themes. Were artists of the time fixated only on the religious aspects of life? No doubt religion was more important, but the real consideration was that patronage came once from the Church.
Nothing against patronage, but this is none of it.
Patronage chooses the best artists available to produce art for the patron. This measures grant money to self-proclaimed artists and are not based on merit.
I get where you're coming from. I would be a bit annoyed if, for instance, taxpayer money went to artists painting white-paint-on-white-canvas non-paintings or recording silence as a form of music. The trouble is that it's hard to measure / assess "merit" beyond extreme cases like I've listed. To illustrate: there are plenty of movies that were panned by critics of their time only to later become "cult classics".
Well, that's an interesting point you raise. I see it as critics using to have some "skin in the game". They used to be either recognized artists themselves or later the patrons, or someone that was paid by the patrons to critic works and find the best artists to work for the patrons (I see that part a bit like the people that today search for young talents for big football (i.e. soccer) teams).
With the democratization of art that followed the subsidizing with public money of artists an all new class of people was born. One that didn't really have that same "skin in the game" but had at their disposal money that wasn't theirs to distribute as they saw fit.
I believe that gave rise to situations like you mention. Yes, there are a lot of excellent movies that were destroying by early critics (not saying that didn't happen before, I'm very well aware of great music compositions being ruined because some monarch didn't like the opening concert). The thing is, why do we let (and keep letting) those critics to be some kind of gate keepers of art?
Art and culture is extremely valuable, but is often not profitable / sustainable. Banking is important to society too, but it's already well compensated!
I think there's a danger in removing art from any kind of market mechanisms because it can lead to some very navel-gazing output that appeals to very few. In the long term, this kind of art would lead to making this kind of UBI unpopular and would undermine the whole thing. Not a lot of taxpayers are going to be on board with paying someone to can their own feces[1] or submerge religious icons in piss[2] for example.
Art and culture is extremely valuable. But the kind of art and culture supported by government programs tends to be less so.
What would also be much more valuable than creating art is making that art available to everyone including for the purposes of producing more art. If the art subsidies came with a condition to release the art to the public domain then I would be much more for domain-specific funding.
Some things need funding despite being unprofitable. Not everyone will agree, but I believe art/culture (including often unprofitable forms thereof) are worthwhile, and should thus receive public funding (to some degree). I believe the same about justice, policing, education, research etc.
None of this rules allowing a freeish market to operate where doing so "delivers the goods".
You have to make an argument on _why_ market forces don't compensate artists fairly. The standard argument is that art is a public good with a free rider problem– a mural might produce value to everyone who looks at it but there is no way to force them to pay for it. That argument fails for many of the things this program is funding: theater, opera and film. All examples of art that is easily excludable.
i do not feel that we have a shortage of art and in fact we have much more art than in past years where everyone was forced to do agricultural labor.
art is relatively low on my list of positive externality activities to subsidize, after stuff like ensuring everyone has food to eat, home, etc. at least in the US, we are already running a deficit so we do not even have the money to do this - let alone some broad UBI for artists.
and how do we agree on what jobs are undercompensated? every person will have their own hobbyhorse
Yes, if we are worried about the amount of art we have available then maybe we should focus on making existing art available first (e.g by reforming copyright) instead of wasting money on dubious programs to create more of art that will be locked away.
Great art isn't necessarily about popularity / wide appeal, though. In fact, the art that isn't of wide, general appeal, is what stands to benefit the most from this kind of benefit.
Ordinary People, Redford's directorial debut, is one of my favourite movies. A movie that deceptively appears simple but that is wonderfully emotionally deep with great performances from the entire cast. I must give it a rewatch.
We've seen how misinformation -- including ideas that were once fringe, believed only by a minority of cranks -- spreads and becomes acceptable, becomes a "legitimate alternative opinion".
We've seen, too, how hostile states, populists within, spread falsehoods to sew havoc and division.
My only hope, really, is that I think some of the younger generation are slightly more alert than some Gen X and millennials (my own generation) as to the dangers of misinformation online.
I wish I knew the solution too. Like you, I feel quite helpless even in terms of what to WANT. Can the Twitters of the world be regulated? If so, are we as a society able to agree on how it should be regulated, or are we too divided to agree on anything?
It's a mess. I don't know how we get out of it.
reply