For some reason, it feels like artists always need to somehow justify their existence. Meanwhile, tech gets billions of dollars of private and public funding. As long as what you're doing in tech fits within the current hype cycle and milieu, then no one blinks an eye.
I'd much rather "throw money away" at the arts rather than waste more money on self-driving cars, fintech, going to Mars, or whatever else the Bay Area thinks will make the world a better place.
They don't think it will make the world a better place, only that it will make them boatloads of money. And lo and behold, an artist whose work holds the same promise won't have to justify anything.
But I think that would be comparing apples with oranges. If we make art with the same motivations that produce tech, is it still art?
Artists do not need to justify their existence. They do need to justify their desire to obtain access to other people's money.
By all means, donate to your local artist. Tech gets all of this funding because it produces tangible results, tech provides what people ask for. Piss Christ, however ... well, give money to the artist if it pleases you.
There's a sculpture park not too far away from me. It has very large metal polygons, gently rusting. It certainly fits my modern art criteria: is it ugly? Is it incomprehensible?
And then comes the question of "What do you get out of this particular bit of art?" The standard defense is "anything you like." Which sounds great until you realize that only one piece of art is ever required, the rest being superfluous. That one piece is "anything you like," which is congruent with any other piece's identical "anything you like." No need for anything else.
With these sorts of things, modern art is backing itself into a corner. It isn't surprising that people aren't eager to open their wallets.
Generally the justification for that is "I'll make you more money, either in the short run or in the long run."
Somehow, this is the only justification we can get anyone to agree on in the modern world. Should we educate kids? "Sure, as long as its STEM so they can be good taxpayers."
Come to think of it, this is also often the justification for art. Should I buy this piece? "Of course, it will gain in value"
I would actually argue that STEM education is generally harmful in that it acts like it's the only thing important. Honestly, engineering and technology is mainly made difficult by engineers themselves, who have little influence from other fields.
No one said otherwise. But let's be honest. Do they really currently have to justify things to such a degree that artists do?
The National Endowment for the Arts' budget is less than $200 million. Here's the approximate budgets for scientists and engineers:
* NASA: $23 billion
* NSF: $10 billion
* DARPA: $4.3 billion
* DoD: $780 billion (a lot of which goes to defense contractors and laboratories)
* The self-driving car industry has spent around $50 billion. And what have we got out of that industry that justifies that spending?
* Cryptocurrency startups are expected to get around $12 billion in funding in 2024. What have we got out of it that justifies that budget?
* Scientists got $5 billion dollars to smash around particles and play with statistics.
When it comes to funding, scientists, engineers, and tech-related endeavors have it extremely easy, and no one places the demands on the tech industry that they do on other industries.
>For some reason, it feels like artists always need to somehow justify their existence. Meanwhile, tech gets billions of dollars of private and public funding.
it's more a reflection of modern business than anything else. you can objectively lay out a market analysis, profits projection, etc. and get a guaranteed minimum users. Those are things businesses love to hear.
For Art, You can in fact do all the things above too. But the market analysis has less confidence because because art itself is a premium. Someone can say they want X art, but if times get hard or moods shift, it's the first thing to be discarded.
It's really hard to build in a "need" for a specific art like it is tech. That manipulation is sadly a big part of business.
I'd much rather "throw money away" at the arts rather than waste more money on self-driving cars, fintech, going to Mars, or whatever else the Bay Area thinks will make the world a better place.