How would art be funded work under your chosen economic system

How would art be funded work under your chosen economic system.

Here is some art.

It wouldn't be.

artists would appeal to either their local assemblies or confederated assemblies depending on the scale and area effected.

Passion projects that use up some extra labor power of the people involved exist today under capitalism, they could exist under socialism too. This is how many currently capitalized commodities could continue to exist, like sports cars and rad vidya.

Would they not deem art only be worthy of funding if it attracted a large scale audience (aka cape shit) rather then someone wanting to do a large scale niche audience project.


I agree with this, but I am more concerned with the idea of any big budget art venture would be deemed not worthy of a large amount of material resources if it was not appealing to normies.

I think that budget is all really relative. Some of the most beautiful pieces of animation were done on a shoestring budget by a single person or small team over many, many years rather than being a massive team all working together. For larger projects, looking at the open source software world may give us an idea of how they would be pulled off rather than the more traditional concept of funding and production being separate things.

If the community wanted it, it would be funded however they saw fit.

So say goodbye to feminist art thats just a picture of an unmade bed or some shit

Oh no personal I agree, and most of the art I enjoy above all others was with a fairly tame budget, partly I feel if you are limited in what you can do this pushes you to really focus on making the best with what you have kinda deal.

I am just interested in the idea of not freak art being made by some very wealthy person who wants to splash millions on something no one else wants aside him and a few people.


I personnel dislike feminist art I've yet to see any I enjoy, but "you don't get to make what you like because I don't want it or my friends on the committee haha sucks for you" sounds sad tbqh famalam.

You can make what you like, if you want to make something that takes more than normal resources then you are going to have to justify it

only if you think that popular assemblies function on the same logic as large corporations they don't. Society would be based on a humanist ethics. For an example of what I'm talking about look towards Rojava.

Should this not bring into question who is allowed to say if the art is justified or not?

I mean I would hate to have some Holla Forumslack in charge of what is art or not, and only funding art that is traditionalist landscape oil paintings of the country side.

but I would be ok if only soviet art was allowed

The community can decide if they want to fund an artwork if they think it will make that community a better place.


Its a good thing that everybody else would have a vote against the Holla Forumsyps though.

Its not about the community deciding what art is allowed, its about deciding which specific works the community will apportion a part of their surplus value to.

This is bullshit. All art should be for the community and be showed on the streets, not being incarcerated inside some museum or concert hall.

whoever said anything about that.

Why is it such a problem for you that the community decides what they will have to foot the bill for?

Is that not the essence of socialism?

If you want to flick paint at canvas then roll around in it that's cool, just don't make us pay for it

Make some art in your spare time and of enough people like it and pay their labour vouchers towards it you can do it for a job.

That's an interesting question.

Mostly, because the real question is "what's Socialist alternative to the Patent Law?"

Under Communism? Not funded.

Under Central Planning:
- by community hiring artists to do specific works (think kickstarter/patreon), with final product being socialized
- by state, according to the ratings (direct vote of population)


In theory, artists (and scientists) might get some sort of pension/UBI, i.e. they are not being rewarded for their work materially, the only incentive being their actual passion and recognition by peers.

I can't imagine it would too hard for anyone to partake in art under socialism.

Probably some sort of community art club would be ideal. To share ideas and resources.

I hate just flipping round questions, but how is it funded now? Patronage, self-funding and community funding. Why would this model need to change?
In fact, in a classless and moneyless or labourless society of some kind, art would surely be one of the most common pursuits. Obviously, such a society is theoretical but surely must be our end desire.

In the fucking bread book, kropotkin claims that everyone will do work providing the means of living for society (food, housing, clothing, power), and because no surplus value is being extracted and advancements in technology are used to make work hours shorter and easier, people will overall spend far less time working and will have more free time. In this free time, people will voluntarily create art, write, form research groups and scientific communities, etc. I'm not certain that this will be the case for everything other than "necessary" work, but art and writing particularly won't require any sort of funding because there's no need for it to be profitable.

Yes Art would become honored position in society. Artists would be viewed like STEMlords are right now, as saviors and geniuses

But not degenerate art, anything that is autistic or low brow will be thrown in a bonfire (no exceptions).

Abstract and Modern Art can stay, post modernist nonsense goes in the fire

Fascist closet-homo art goes in the fire unless it is open about its homoeroticism

You make art as a passion project, unless you have a big enough audience to crowd-fund your project (which would be via some form of regulated manner, to prohibit con artists), or you make enough money from the sales of the product to make more.

In communism there is no money and thus no need for funding.

this. socialist realism everywhere plz

It would be enjoyed. The artist does not make art for himself usually, nor for money. But for telling, just as told a story. It's revealing a complicated set of ideas in paint or whatever medium, music, as catharsis in hope of appreciation of emotions evoked.

Really without money or with money artistic interest would always be there. We've had art since before agriculture even existed.

Everyone would receive a UBI. Even if you didn't do anything of value, you could still afford to support yourself and buy basic materials for a standard art studio. All software would be free, so that would make work cheaper too.

Of course, if you wanted to erect a 50 m high bronze statue of a trans-african woman rubbing her feminine penis and ejaculating into her own mouth, then you might need to pool your resources with other people or (while work still existed) take up a job to pay for it.

aren't patents just ultraspooky type of personal property?

*private property

Art is engaged in primarily to cope with trauma. In a world without class there would be far less trauma and therefore far less demand for or drive to create art. It would still exist but as a passion project instead of anything remotely commercial.