• Crampon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Idk about other places, bit in Norway there’s a requirement for a % of the budget that has to be used for art on the outside areas and lobby area on public buildings.

    Almost all of it is crap. So giving away money to anyone calling themselves an artist doesn’t work.

    For some reason people in art believe they don’t have to compete like every other individual creating a business. I’ve bought art and have some on my walls at home. But it’s an ocean of bad or uncreative works to skim through if you want to find something you like.

    • Kichae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      Hey, that’s like every other work, and people still get paid for their shit output in other fields.

      There’s no reason for any of us to compete to survive. Especially when the metric that determines whether one succeeds in competing is just how much money some rich fuck makes off of your efforts.

      • Crampon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Creating art is a product which requires demand. Say you work as a graphic designer for a magazine or TV station. Then you make your money doing art just as a receptionist make money sitting behind the desk.

        Being a receptionist as a freelance is a pretty shitty gig I believe. Working with art as a freelancer is actually possible. But it require a lot of networking and actual talent.

        The demand for mediocre art is low. The demand for good art is high. Prices on popular works increase fast.

        • aliteral@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Wait. Define good and mediocre, first. Then, please, adress the most important point: why should we have to compete to just survive? Also, that kind of competition, and the inequalities that it gives birth to, benefit mostly the system and the very very very few people that are behind it, not the majority of the people.

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      I mean, for all you know that could be because they’re not giving enough money away to anyone calling themselves an artist.

      *So, giving that exact amount of money away to anyone calling themselves an artist doesn’t work, for you personally.

    • kibiz0r@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      For some reason people in art believe they don’t have to compete like every other individual creating a business

      If you think art is about selling a product, what’s the point of being alive?

      • Crampon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Why should art then be considered a profession? It could be for the talented ones. For everyone else its a hobby.

        Just like so many people doing basic woodworking at home. Its a hobby and not a profession. Even though the most skilled ones has it as one.

        Seeing a guy getting government founding totaling 3 million USD for shooting paint out his ass makes me clench around my tax money.