It's very hard to make a living as a full time artist. It's harder in today's
tough times which is why even given that I call myself an artist, and that I
my mother is also an artist, even knowing that I call myself a business owner
first and an artist second what I am about to say about having the tax payers
subsidize art in any way may just shock you.
I am aware that this is a controversial topic, and that the “creative
class” stigmatizes this view very heavily. That being said I am from
a place where the government demands that 1% of the budget for a given
project be spent on art, and I say that 1% is the first 1% of the budget I
would cut. Let's be clear I am against government subsidizes in general
because of how they work.
Using the example of the arts:
Money gets taken from the tax payer: That means you, me, and everyone else
who makes an honest living, owns property, everybody. But look closely at
the wording, that subsidize costs me money too. That's also money that your
suddenly not spending on your essentials like food, clothing, shelter, and
non-essentials like ARTS and entertainment, there went some possible income
for every artist who's work you might want to buy, be they in the art of
drawing, painting, writing, acting, you name it.
The the money is spent, or redistributed: I could go on all day about my
opinions on what the tax money is spent on, but that is what happens. The
fact is the government doesn't spend their money well. Art is just as much
about the art of salesmanship when it comes to making a living. So an artist
might just have been willing to create a BETTER quality work of art for the free
advertising if they felt the crunch of having to sell their artwork to a private
buyer and didn't have the government buyer as a safety net. (This is assuming
the government is purchasing artwork and not just skipping the buying of any
actual artwork step.)
So the artist cashes the check and has to pay tax on that money: Which will
probably go to subsidize something else. So to subsidize in all likelihood
another artist at least in part.
Truth be told I would go as far as to say that the government subsidizing the
arts creates a negative impact on quality of artwork too. If you don't believe
me go to a modern art exhibit, and then look up digital art online. There is
still talent within some of today's artists.
While I am aware of those who might argue that full time artists is a problem
I would say that those people should be informed that:
Long before I decided to start espdigiart.com, I was determined not to become
an artist because I wanted to make a good and honest living, and I was smart
enough to know the odds of doing that as an artist were next impossible. Since
I was honest with myself about the chances of being able to make a living as an
artist I spent several years pursuing other avenues. So artist was neither my
first choice, nor am I planning espdigiart.com remaining my sol business venture.
But take a look at those words: espdigiart.com is my first business venture but
not my last. I've got business goals in at least 2 other online industries,
and as well several offline business goals.
You can't make a living as an artist maybe you need to start another business
in another industry, get another job, work toward another career goal. Don't
ask the me the tax payer to pay for you to make artwork, with money that they're
taking out of what ever income I made because I am sick of paying for it.