It's not like Ireland is getting rid of unemployment insurance. And insurance sales and carpet installation are professions where there are jobs that actually pay a living wage.
A lot of societies have realized there is value in supporting art and culture. For thousands of years that activity was sponsored by monarchs, royalty and other nobility. Up until actually quite recently, most first world countries without monarchs and nobles also provided substantial support for the arts.
> A lot of societies have realized there is value in supporting art and culture.
Basically outlandishly rich and gaudy benefactors have always had so much money they could employ OTHERS to do trivial pursuits. Now - the average taxpayer will bear that cost.
I'm sure if you asked the average tax payer they would prefer programs like these rather than corporate welfare nonsense. So yeah, seems alright to me. I'm a tax payer.
What's interesting is that you don't realize how much of that stuff from Walmart had artistic processes embedded into it along the production line.
Did those shower curtains have a design? Did your sweater have a color and style? Probably so, but you never pay attention to how the world of "fine art" refracts into your daily life.
If the products were cheap, it's likely someone unpaid is responsible for the design. See, for example, the lawsuit against Zara over theft of ideas from small-time designers [1].
In any case, cheap Chinese brands do the same thing as Zara en masse (copying designs – note the "external suppliers" bit in its defense PR), and those products then end up in Walmart/on Amazon. The artists starve but you have your shower curtains and are happy with the price.
Yes and do billion dollar corporations really need that much government subsidies? Turns out yes they do, but sure enjoy your plastic trinkets from China I guess. Hopefully you thank a tax payer that pays for the welfare and medicaid of those Walmart workers, and the local town for cheaper property taxes and utility rates at Walmart.
God knows Walmart couldn't exist with all this rampant welfare.
walmart solves a major logistical problem: provide government subsidized goods to low income neighborhoods. the government should like to give walmart money, as it is plausibly a cost-effective way to provide these goods to people who need them. the administrators of walmart are well rewarded for providing this public good.
It seems there are 2000 positions and 8000 applicants. The program cost $74M, but more than paid for itself:
> It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through increases in arts-related expenditure, productivity gains and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments, according to a government-commissioned cost-benefit analysis.
Anyone can become an artist with no skill and minimal effort while being a carpet installer requires skill and effort. If you are a carpet installer just call it art and get the money
This is admittedly a tangent, but I love that British (and apparently Irish) government programs are commonly called "schemes". To American ears, it always sounds like some grand confidence trick is being pulled.
As an Irish person, in normal speech the word "scheme" has exactly the same shady connotations as it does for Americans. Calling someone a "schemer" is a common insult. I've always assumed the government started using the word in a rare moment of honesty and it stuck.
In India too, discounts and promotional policies are commonly called 'schemes.' I learned the hard way that in the US, the word has a negative connotation when I asked my rental office about any 'schemes,' they looked at me with total shock.
They had something like this in the Netherlands during the 80s. Basically everyone was out of a job back then so it didn't really matter. Worst recession since 1929.
Artists had to make a buch of art which was then given to the government. The state ended up with entire warehouses filled with crap.
The work also included infrastructure projects, and often would create public art to decorate the infrastructure. That is why you'll see far more decorative work when looking at bridges from that era, for example.
I remember learning about this in high school, but grew up in a part of a large city that only really developed after the 1940's, I didn't think much of it. However, the name was catchy so I had it stashed in my memory somewhere.
As I've gone on to live in a few older cities, I have been surprised the number of times that I have (for example) come across a bridge or tunnel or whatnot and seen a big serif "WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION 1936" plaque on one side of it. It always feels like stepping into an alternate reality where history is more present and real.
It feels like a silly way to phrase it, but growing up where only a handful of buildings were older than 40 years, encountering history in a more banal form, like a simple bridge with some engravings, always feels more impactful than seeing some 500-year-old castle, monument or other touristy site.
they hired artists and builders, they had a nice run of building domestic concentration camps that would make Nancy Pelosi scream ice faster than you could blink
Sweden introduced a similar scheme in 1964, in which artists (broadly defined, having since come to include one clown and one chess player) have been given a basic income, supplementing their other incomes up to a specific level.
Artists couldn't apply for this, but were officially selected. The program was stopped in 2010, meaning no new recipients have been selected since. As far as I know, there's been no studies surrounding any measurable increase in artistic quality or artistic output.
It is of course easy to point out how deeply unfair such programs are on multiple levels. Unsurprisingly, many recipients have utilized loopholes in order to receive the grant despite having incomes and wealth well above the threshold.
Edit to clarify: Sweden still grants long-term stipends to various artists, sometimes up to a decade. What's described above is a guaranteed, life-long, basic income.
I'd bet what happens is that it just funded a bunch of children of upper middle class families.
Scholarships and this kind of funds happen elsewhere and are based on merits. They end up funding a bunch of upper middle class's children because it turns out those children are well-equipped to perform higher on merits.
If you are too rich, then you wouldn't need this kind of fund.
If you are below upper middle class, then you would have a hard time competing with children from that class.
The upper middle class isn't rich enough to fund the kid but is good enough to accumulate a lot of merits.
You're sort of right. This particular grant is extra curious because it's typically been given to already highly accomplished artists. Sweden is a small pond and although there are a few fun outliers in this crowd, most of them make out the upper echelons of the Swedish cultural societé. Some were born straight into it. Others, no doubt, had parents who could put them there and knew someone who knew someone. One, for example, is Swedish nobility and the son of a diplomat. Another was the son of a Swedish secretary of state.
While I'm sure there are some wholly self-made virtuosos on the list, it does give off an air of apparent nepotism.
People have seemed critical of the presentation, scope, and goal of this program. (e.g. It's not "universal" basic income, the number of recipients is limited to 2,000, and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?)
Now it seems that we'll get some real world answer to those questions/concerns.
> and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?
There are far more than 2,000 real, paying jobs for schoolteachers. And for grocery clerks. And for nurses. And for fire fighters. And for drivers of rubbish lorries. And for ...
Not so much for the folks who hope to be the next James Joyce or Louis le Brocquy.
With the modest size of the monthly checks, most of them may need to do that anyway.
But the obvious point is to help "artists" in Ireland. It's pretty normal for small nations to want to cultivate / protect / subsidize their arts / culture / language / whatever. The Irish gov't isn't trumpeting this program because they think it'll annoy Irish voters.
But I think people who benefit from this won’t be artists. But people who are good at making money off artsy projects.
I’d see much more value in investing in supply and demand. First, provide free studios with arts supplies, music instruments and so on. Next, force government agencies to hire local artists. Make municipalities have live music for local events and hire local musicians. Make gov agencies buy local art for decorations etc.
325 Euros/week sounds like basic rent & food & transportation. Not artsy projects with enough spare Euros for someone to skim serious money off from.
Providing "free" studios, supplies, instruments, etc. sounds like a scheme to give politicians more photo ops and bureaucrats more jobs. Why can't the artists just source exactly what they think they need from existing supply chains?
artists dont do "normal" and generaly experience reality from a particular, and personal point of view, and grocerie store managers and young artists will almost certainly have mutualy antagonistic points of view. artists thrive in random spontainious environments, but forget about food, so we give them money, that they give to normal grocery store clerks, and we all forgo the seething frustration that would result from your suggestion.
Since only people with a wealthy family safety net have the wherewithal to call themselves artists, these schemes just end up as a transfer from poor to rich (kids)
iirc from previous criticism I saw on this a majority of the trial recipients were retirement age adults, but all the same people much wealthier with the privilege to have time/money to spend doing art. Younger artists? Not established enough.
If they think this is good/important then fine but what they've created is a grant programme, not a UBI.
Personally I would have thought this money would have been better spent getting people on the margins the stability to retrain into in-demand skilled careers (e.g. single, unskilled parents training as electricians or plumbers). That feels like it would be a more durable, multi-generational benefit.
Who said it is a UBI that this "rebuttal" even makes sense to appear here? The Irish government isn't calling it a UBI. The article doesn't call it a UBI. Even the FAQ for the program says it is not UBI:
>> Why this is not a Universal Basic Income
>> It is important to note that that the Basic Income for the Arts Pilot is not a Universal Basic Income. This is a sectoral intervention to support practicing artists and creative arts workers to focus on their creative practice. This policy is separate to the Universal Basic income as outlined in the Programme for Government.
Basic Income and UBI are colloquially synonyms, people use them interchangeably, and the Irish government are almost certainly using it to endear themselves to supporters of UBI and to get more coverage for their policy than media would give them if they just called it a grant.
This happens all the time. For example, in the UK there was a push for a "living wage" in the 2010s, which the government responded to by rebranding the minimum wage the "National Living Wage" and bumping it a little for over-25s.
Society needs art. Artists produce art. There a pantheon of greats that had no commercial success in their lives but moved our culture, we’d be so much more culturally impoverished if we’d insisted they become shit plumbers.
It is not a grant. It is UBI. People who advocated for UBI always said they will spend time creating art, etc. if they didn’t have to work for income. So here it is, the dream come true.
Ok, let me guess, without looking at the article .... is it a "pilot" that's rolled out to a small number of people, for a limited period of time, and its success is judged by surveying those people on whether they were happy to get free money? I bet it was.
> It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through [...] and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments,
Which sounds quite a bit like "we spent more on one type of welfare so we ended up spending less on a different type of welfare." Which, okay, good, but I don't think you can say you "recouped" anything.
> Ireland rolled out a permanent basic income scheme for the arts on Tuesday, pledging to pay 2,000 creative workers 325 euros ($387) per week following a trial that participants said eased financial strain and allowed them to spend more time on projects.
> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle. O'Donovan said he would like to increase the number of recipients over time.
> Over 8,000 applicants applied for the 2,000 places in the pilot scheme.
> A report on the trial found it lowered the likelihood of artists experiencing enforced deprivation, and reduced their levels of anxiety and reliance on supplementary income.
But in my view, arts should be funded by people in private. Any spare resources the government can muster up should be invested in improving the security and quality of life for its people. If no one ever goes hungry, and their medical needs are met swiftly, and justice is swift and accessible to all. then I can see the appeal in funding arts. But even then, sciences can meaningfully and in the long-term improve humans' lives.
I don't even know if the arts would benefit from this. Will the government arbitrate whose art is better? Private persons would, they won't fund a terrible artist. and from what I know about artists, the rejection and failure is instrumental to revelations and breakthroughs in their art. Without that, will the state be funding or facilitating mediocrity in art?
Imagine if this was for entrepreneurs. If the government will provide income so long as you're starting businesses. If you didn't have much to begin with, it might prevent you from giving up businesses that are failing, hold on to that restaurant years after it's failed because you like the vibe, and your needs are met. But if you'll eventually be in danger of running out of money to support yourself, you'll be forced to shut doors early, learn lessons and move on to something better.
I'm just making a case against dreams being kept alive artificially on life-support. And of the consequence of not having adversity when needed. I don't know if it's true, but I remember an analogy of artificial biospheres failing to grow trees and plants early on, because they didn't simulate wind. the trees needed the resistance, push and adversity of wind to thrive.
But I'll digress, I'm not saying Ireland did wrong, just putting my thoughts on the subject out there. They know what they're doing, I'm sure. And this is sounding too much like damn linkedin post, and on HN too of all places, talking about entrepreneurship, shame on me! :)
All these places use the word UNCONDITIONAL instead of UNIVERSAL because they are scared of printing money and paying all their citizens, while jacking up pigovian taxes on the other side.
You can't solve real world social and economic problems with hare-brained cryptocurrency schemes. If you want to support local artists then just buy their art, or give them donations in real currency.
It's not universal if only selected individuals get it. And you can't live on 325 euros in a place like Ireland. So it's not even basic income. But it's a nice temporary subsidy.
Proper basic income has never really been tried. It would have to be universal (for the entire population) and be enough to live on.
Most countries have non universal basic income in the form of benefits, state pensions, food stamps, and various social security insurance programs. One way or another people that can't or won't work still get enough to survive. Mostly, countries don't let their citizens starve. They mostly don't put them out on the streets. And if people get sick, generally hospitals/doctors will help. You won't necessarily get a very nice version of all that in most countries.
If you think of basic income like that, UBI is actually not that much of a departure from that status quo. It just establishes that as a bare minimum that everybody gets one way or another. The reason that the idea gets a lot of push back is that people have a lot of morals about having to earn stuff which then results in complex rules to qualify for things only if you are unable to earn a living. Which then turns into a lot of complex schemes to establish non universal income that comes into a variety of forms and shapes. But it adds up to the same result: everybody is taken care off.
A proper UBI would have to award it to anyone. That's what universal means. It would be a simplification of what we have now. If you are employed, you would get a chunk of income from UBI and the rest from your employer. Basically, you work to add income on top of your UBI and it's between you and your employer to sort out how much you work and how much you earn. If you get unemployed, you fall back to UBI. UBI would be untaxed. But if you work or earn income you pay taxes. Company earnings are taxed as well. And you pay VAT when you buy stuff. Those revenue streams are what already fund things today.
People think of UBI as extra cost but it could actually be a cost saving if done properly. There's a lot of bureaucracy that's no longer needed. You could still layer insurances and benefits on top of course. But that would be more optional. And you could incentivize people to work that are currently actively incentivized to not work (e.g. to not lose benefits or get penalized on their pensions).
People forget that the status quo is not free either and that it requires an enormous, convoluted bureaucracy that also costs money. UBI could end up being simpler and cheaper.
The hard part with UBI is balancing fairness and financial viability and implementing it in a way that isn't massively disruptive and complicated. You'd need to incentivize most people to still want to work while making the system generous enough that people can opt not to. That's not a solved problem and the key show stopper. Many people that work object against anyone getting anything for free. But if you consider the status quo, we already have a lot of people not working anyway. And we all pay for that already. That is actually a rather large percentage of people that are allowed to vote in many countries.
Mostly the moral arguments against UBI are what perpetuates the very inefficient and costly status quo. We just keep on making that harsher, more complicated, and more expensive. Effectively if you work, you are paying extra for all that inefficiency. Worse, you can work your ass off your whole life and still have to worry about having enough to retire, the affordability of housing, or being able to afford essential health care.
And "proper" UBI will never actually be tried, at least not on any significant scale. Because if you actually run the numbers you'll see that the level of taxation required plus the inflationary effects make the whole scheme unworkable.
Taxation and inflation are 2nd order effects. There's a deeper underlying reason.
The point of work is to produce the things we need to live. Somebody's gotta grow the crops, drive the trucks, mop the floors, crunch the numbers, process the paperwork, write the code, whatever.
If you offer enough UBI for people to live without working... the work won't get done, and things we need won't get made.
Has anyone ever tried to look at the concept of a Universal Basic Job? If you can show up semi-sober, you get paid to paint over graffiti, or pick up trash along the road, or something.
No, minimum wage jobs are kind of the opposite. They push underqualified people to the side, since who wants to pay $15/hour for someone only capable of producing $5/hr of value. And most jobs generally come with more obligations, like "we need you here 2pm - 10pm, Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday".
The trouble is that paying a few people to not work is very very different from paying everyone to not work.
We need people to work to produce the things they need to live. As long as this remains true, UBI can never happen. This fantasy of being able to live without working is out of touch with the cold hard reality.
> As long as this remains true, UBI can never happen.
New Zealand pays a pension to everyone over 65, whether or not they are working. No means testing and little political will to move the age upward.
About 25% of those over 65 work, and the percentage is growing.
There are multiple reasons this could be true (eg, limited savings forcing work).
The lack of means testing obviously saves money and shenanigans working out who is entitled, though the ‘universal’ nature limited how much a needy recipient can get.
not in this case though. as explained elsewhere, the artist is a dying career choice in ireland owing to economic reasons. no artist == drub society therefore the incompetent government intervenes the only way incompetence approves: free money. making the state function is much harder, and that’s not what these politicians signed up for. reducing electricity bill by 50% is a herculean task so how about jacking up taxes in one place and giving it back as free money in another? this is the modus operandi of the irish government.
The problem is soon (and to some extent currently) there won't be enough work for everyone, and there definitely won't be enough to support them at a historical lifestyle level.
I guess those people continuing to live (or live semi-well) would be fantasy to you. I'm not sure where society will go at that point.
The western world has sold a 'we are improving your life' story to get buy in from the masses. What do you propose? Other options used in the past were typically state provided bread and circuses and/or waging war.
As more and more work is automated, the lifestyle level increases rather than decreases. Automation lets you produce more with the same amount of labor, increasing productivity and raising the standard of living. This is the sole reason we're not subsistence farmers right now.
War does not help the masses; it is purely destructive and one of the worst things you can do for the economy in the long run.
And yet my kids standard of living is worse. Their optimism about their employment is worse. I never used to know people working multiple very menial part time jobs to survive other than people restarting their lives. When I was young people working second jobs were saving money for a vacation or using them to pay for a fancy car, not as part of their basic budget/means of earning an income.
"Ray Dalio says America is developing a ‘dependency’ on the top 1% of workers, while the bottom 60% are struggling and unproductive"
War is unproductive and a destructive use of resources but that doesn't change that it has historically be an outlet for unused labor. My point was that if we don't approach things intelligently/intentionally we can end up with crappy unwanted/unintentional outcomes.
How soon is "soon"? I don't know about Ireland but the US unemployment rate remains near record lows. We still don't have robots that can snake out a plugged toilet.
Ray Dalio says a lot of things, only about half are correct. Where is the data? Employers are quick to fire unproductive workers and yet the unemployment rate remains low.
Does the government get equity in the artist's work? If one of the recipients turns out to be the next Picasso, and makes say $1 million selling a painting (either as an NFT or a traditional art auction), does he have to give the $1 million to the government?
Grants operate differently over here. You have to write a submission, proposing works and budget and generally justifying. It is assessed by a committee. Politics gets involved. And a few people get larger chunks of money and the people holding the purse strings retain control on what is produced. It is essentially work on commission for the government, except you rarely get 100% of your costs covered.
Whereas in this Irish program, it is less money for more people chosen by lottery. The only editorial control is who is qualified to enter the lottery. It is also subsidizing the artist and not the art work, with artists working in cheap mediums receiving the same as artists dealing with high costs. So you are still going to need a grant or commission if you work in monumental bronze.
That's an interesting idea. One has to test things to see if they can be made to work.
I think the amount is something that can be disputed, but the underlying idea is, IMO, a sound one. Similar to the "unconditional basic income" idea - again, the amount can be contemplated, but the idea is sound, even more so as there are more and more superrich ignoring regular laws or buying legislation in a democracy. That means the old model simply does not work. Something has to change - which path to pick can be debated, but something has to be done.
That's the best way to do it. Otherwise all the money will go to the rich brat children of politicians/etc who are socially connected to whoever they put on the selection committees.
Mostly because the kind of people who run and advocate for programs like this are actively hostile to the idea of merit. Prioritizing talented people would be antithetical to them.
And thinks that s/he's a winner and the stuff s/he enjoys is made by winners, and the stuff s/he doesn't like is made by losers. Merit, universal, objective = ME; Worthless, narcissistic, special interest = YOU.
Prioritizing merit would be fine if there was some way to measure merit empirically, and if that measure couldn't be gamed by anybody with money and/or connections. But this is for artists, so...
> Ireland's Culture Minister Patrick O'Donovan said the scheme was the first permanent one of its kind in the world [...] The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle.
So it's permanent, but the recipients don't get it permanently?
The program was run as a trial (time limited, not permanent). They've now made it a permanent program (no time limit, not temporary).
So to answer your question: Yes, it's permanent (or as permanent as any gov't program can be), but the recipients don't get the money for an indefinite span of time (permanently).
Do they have to be unemployed during the grant period? They could still find commissions and other stuff during that time or sell their art. And I guess for an artist either way you have a lot of new portfolio entries?
> Do they have to be unemployed during the grant period?
No, they're allowed to have other work or earn money from their art. The intent is to subsidize their income, not be their exclusive income for those three years.
> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years
Budgets are limited so they can't give to everyone all the time. They give each batch of artists money for 3 years and then move to the next batch. Interesting to see if there's a chance they start looping over.
the irish government is adept at misplaced priorities, (very) short-term thinking, pursuers of feel-good vibes, basically everything besides running a state. incompetence here has bred the need for more and varied welfare programs just so we can have a variety of careers that cater to the needs of life. of course, necessity of the arts is undisputed. but can the artist make a career here when the money you make from a show, including tips, can’t pay your utility bills? when your income can’t afford you decent accommodation?
Dublin's Grafton Street with it's buskers is and was so unique to this American. I wondered if anywhere else in the world matches the musicianship heard on that street and in Dublin's bars? Music is engrained in it's culture in a way I have not experienced before(tho the weird looks I received wearing my baseball cap in Dublin was off putting as I had not experienced that in Berlin, Paris, Reykjavik, Amsterdamn, etc).
Overall It's a bit sad going to American bars and not hearing the whole bar singing along to the musician up on stage. Amercia's culture I feel is way more focused on celebrity then musicianship.
In Dublin's best music venues, nobody is singing along because it's brand new material from brand new artists. If you're singing along to well known songs in Temple Bar then I'm afraid you're missing some of the best music the city has to offer, in venues like Whelan's, Workmans, Sin É, The Grand Social etc.
Because in America we do not appreciate local musicians as i experienced in Dublin nor do we sing alongs in majority of our bars (maybe there are a few but none ive been to throughout the US & its not apart of our culture). We are a more subdued culture in this regards and as I believe worship/appreciate celebrity musicians over local musicians.
Grafton St buskers at their best are really really good, but there are also some very average buskers there every day too. New Orleans is a stand-out in the US where you can find world-class jazz bands playing on the streets.
Nashville has plenty in the evenings, and then you can find hot spots in some cities. I've seen regular buskers in Boston, Seattle, Sarasota, and Boulder - usually in pedestrianized touristy quarters.
Guess it's Dublin's bar culture and vibe that really stood out to me. I've been to the French Quarter yet don't recall almost everyone in each bar there singing along to their local musicians. Musicians who are really good to great like in Dublin's bars I experienced in December.
I heard Emily Blunt say on Graham Norton, "We know your American with your baseball cap." I know that's the UK but maybe it holds true for Dublin too.
The looks were strange and from women in their 20s as I walked around Dublin. Im not much to look at yet do not receive such looks or rude behavior (one purposely did not hold the bathroom door at starbucks as I waited my turn 25 feet away waiting to get in rather she purposely pushed the door to close) at home in the DC region or my travels throughout the US and Europe. Another American mentioned a similar experience too. My friend traveling with me he was not wearing a hat & did not experience any such thing.
No, that's just Europe. First, they often pay to visit a bathroom there so the pushing the door close is just preventing you from freeloading. Second, Europe is denser than the US and so has cultures that don't have as negative a take on being rude. Some parts are worse than others.
Busking and live music is definitely still around. Especially in larger cities. I agree that the neighborhood bar scene sucks but that's more an issue that everyone has to drive home. Once you get to a place with good transportation or a downtown hub it all comes roaring back.
I don’t get it. Why are artists more deserving than unemployed insurance salespeople or carpet installers?
It's not like Ireland is getting rid of unemployment insurance. And insurance sales and carpet installation are professions where there are jobs that actually pay a living wage.
A lot of societies have realized there is value in supporting art and culture. For thousands of years that activity was sponsored by monarchs, royalty and other nobility. Up until actually quite recently, most first world countries without monarchs and nobles also provided substantial support for the arts.
> A lot of societies have realized there is value in supporting art and culture.
Basically outlandishly rich and gaudy benefactors have always had so much money they could employ OTHERS to do trivial pursuits. Now - the average taxpayer will bear that cost.
I'm sure if you asked the average tax payer they would prefer programs like these rather than corporate welfare nonsense. So yeah, seems alright to me. I'm a tax payer.
i purchase a hell of a lot more stuff from Walmart than I do fine art.
It's funny that you put it that way, b/c I have definitely spent more money on art (not even 'fine' art) that I have at Walmart over the years.
What's interesting is that you don't realize how much of that stuff from Walmart had artistic processes embedded into it along the production line.
Did those shower curtains have a design? Did your sweater have a color and style? Probably so, but you never pay attention to how the world of "fine art" refracts into your daily life.
If the products were cheap, it's likely someone unpaid is responsible for the design. See, for example, the lawsuit against Zara over theft of ideas from small-time designers [1].
In any case, cheap Chinese brands do the same thing as Zara en masse (copying designs – note the "external suppliers" bit in its defense PR), and those products then end up in Walmart/on Amazon. The artists starve but you have your shower curtains and are happy with the price.
[1] https://www.grossmanllp.com/independent-artists-on-the-offen...
Yes and do billion dollar corporations really need that much government subsidies? Turns out yes they do, but sure enjoy your plastic trinkets from China I guess. Hopefully you thank a tax payer that pays for the welfare and medicaid of those Walmart workers, and the local town for cheaper property taxes and utility rates at Walmart.
God knows Walmart couldn't exist with all this rampant welfare.
walmart solves a major logistical problem: provide government subsidized goods to low income neighborhoods. the government should like to give walmart money, as it is plausibly a cost-effective way to provide these goods to people who need them. the administrators of walmart are well rewarded for providing this public good.
I think what you think this says about you is not what it actually says about you.
In Ireland?
Agreed. Can just all myself an artist to get other people's tax money?
It seems there are 2000 positions and 8000 applicants. The program cost $74M, but more than paid for itself:
> It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through increases in arts-related expenditure, productivity gains and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments, according to a government-commissioned cost-benefit analysis.
there is art in getting other people's tax money, so yes
Anyone can become an artist with no skill and minimal effort while being a carpet installer requires skill and effort. If you are a carpet installer just call it art and get the money
the irony in this statement is palpable
This is admittedly a tangent, but I love that British (and apparently Irish) government programs are commonly called "schemes". To American ears, it always sounds like some grand confidence trick is being pulled.
As an Irish person, in normal speech the word "scheme" has exactly the same shady connotations as it does for Americans. Calling someone a "schemer" is a common insult. I've always assumed the government started using the word in a rare moment of honesty and it stuck.
Or perchance it is the other way around. The word started as official term and over time got shady connotation because can't trust Big Government.
In India too, discounts and promotional policies are commonly called 'schemes.' I learned the hard way that in the US, the word has a negative connotation when I asked my rental office about any 'schemes,' they looked at me with total shock.
Growing up in the UK, we would be sent to a “play scheme” during the school holidays. Weird phrase.
They had something like this in the Netherlands during the 80s. Basically everyone was out of a job back then so it didn't really matter. Worst recession since 1929.
Artists had to make a buch of art which was then given to the government. The state ended up with entire warehouses filled with crap.
There was also the WPA program in the USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration
The work also included infrastructure projects, and often would create public art to decorate the infrastructure. That is why you'll see far more decorative work when looking at bridges from that era, for example.
I remember learning about this in high school, but grew up in a part of a large city that only really developed after the 1940's, I didn't think much of it. However, the name was catchy so I had it stashed in my memory somewhere.
As I've gone on to live in a few older cities, I have been surprised the number of times that I have (for example) come across a bridge or tunnel or whatnot and seen a big serif "WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION 1936" plaque on one side of it. It always feels like stepping into an alternate reality where history is more present and real.
It feels like a silly way to phrase it, but growing up where only a handful of buildings were older than 40 years, encountering history in a more banal form, like a simple bridge with some engravings, always feels more impactful than seeing some 500-year-old castle, monument or other touristy site.
they hired artists and builders, they had a nice run of building domestic concentration camps that would make Nancy Pelosi scream ice faster than you could blink
I have a feeling that this art will end up all over the walls.
Sweden introduced a similar scheme in 1964, in which artists (broadly defined, having since come to include one clown and one chess player) have been given a basic income, supplementing their other incomes up to a specific level.
Artists couldn't apply for this, but were officially selected. The program was stopped in 2010, meaning no new recipients have been selected since. As far as I know, there's been no studies surrounding any measurable increase in artistic quality or artistic output.
It is of course easy to point out how deeply unfair such programs are on multiple levels. Unsurprisingly, many recipients have utilized loopholes in order to receive the grant despite having incomes and wealth well above the threshold.
Edit to clarify: Sweden still grants long-term stipends to various artists, sometimes up to a decade. What's described above is a guaranteed, life-long, basic income.
I'd bet what happens is that it just funded a bunch of children of upper middle class families.
Scholarships and this kind of funds happen elsewhere and are based on merits. They end up funding a bunch of upper middle class's children because it turns out those children are well-equipped to perform higher on merits.
If you are too rich, then you wouldn't need this kind of fund.
If you are below upper middle class, then you would have a hard time competing with children from that class.
The upper middle class isn't rich enough to fund the kid but is good enough to accumulate a lot of merits.
You're sort of right. This particular grant is extra curious because it's typically been given to already highly accomplished artists. Sweden is a small pond and although there are a few fun outliers in this crowd, most of them make out the upper echelons of the Swedish cultural societé. Some were born straight into it. Others, no doubt, had parents who could put them there and knew someone who knew someone. One, for example, is Swedish nobility and the son of a diplomat. Another was the son of a Swedish secretary of state.
While I'm sure there are some wholly self-made virtuosos on the list, it does give off an air of apparent nepotism.
>They end up funding a bunch of upper middle class's children because it turns out those children are well-equipped to perform higher on merits.
I'd argue they are well equipped to give the appearance of merit, rather than performing higher on actual merit.
Previous discussions:
3 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45590900
4 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29977176
People have seemed critical of the presentation, scope, and goal of this program. (e.g. It's not "universal" basic income, the number of recipients is limited to 2,000, and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?)
Now it seems that we'll get some real world answer to those questions/concerns.
I dont see how we are getting "answers". Disagreeing with program design is not a question.
Tbh though, that doesn't sound that special. Many countries subsidize artists.
There's no good way to evaluate the result anyway.
Grants like this at a small scale is generally inconsequential to the country.
> and why are artists being subsidized instead of essential workers?
There are far more than 2,000 real, paying jobs for schoolteachers. And for grocery clerks. And for nurses. And for fire fighters. And for drivers of rubbish lorries. And for ...
Not so much for the folks who hope to be the next James Joyce or Louis le Brocquy.
I hope to be the next Rothshild, give me a trillion!
Why just one trillion? Give everyone 10 trillion so we can ALL be mega-rich.
Many people who work as schoolteachers, grocery clerks, etc. at one point might have had ambition to be the next James Joyce.
Joyce did work as a schoolteacher. Maybe he would have written better books if he hadn’t had to do this.
Those can go and do normal jobs like grocery clerks. While doing their art in free time. Like many famous artists were doing.
With the modest size of the monthly checks, most of them may need to do that anyway.
But the obvious point is to help "artists" in Ireland. It's pretty normal for small nations to want to cultivate / protect / subsidize their arts / culture / language / whatever. The Irish gov't isn't trumpeting this program because they think it'll annoy Irish voters.
I’m all for encouraging people to create art.
But I think people who benefit from this won’t be artists. But people who are good at making money off artsy projects.
I’d see much more value in investing in supply and demand. First, provide free studios with arts supplies, music instruments and so on. Next, force government agencies to hire local artists. Make municipalities have live music for local events and hire local musicians. Make gov agencies buy local art for decorations etc.
> ...I think people who benefit...
325 Euros/week sounds like basic rent & food & transportation. Not artsy projects with enough spare Euros for someone to skim serious money off from.
Providing "free" studios, supplies, instruments, etc. sounds like a scheme to give politicians more photo ops and bureaucrats more jobs. Why can't the artists just source exactly what they think they need from existing supply chains?
It's about 60% of the Irish minimum wage. So more of a nice gesture than a generous handout or a true attempt at UBI.
artists dont do "normal" and generaly experience reality from a particular, and personal point of view, and grocerie store managers and young artists will almost certainly have mutualy antagonistic points of view. artists thrive in random spontainious environments, but forget about food, so we give them money, that they give to normal grocery store clerks, and we all forgo the seething frustration that would result from your suggestion.
Since only people with a wealthy family safety net have the wherewithal to call themselves artists, these schemes just end up as a transfer from poor to rich (kids)
iirc from previous criticism I saw on this a majority of the trial recipients were retirement age adults, but all the same people much wealthier with the privilege to have time/money to spend doing art. Younger artists? Not established enough.
If they think this is good/important then fine but what they've created is a grant programme, not a UBI.
Personally I would have thought this money would have been better spent getting people on the margins the stability to retrain into in-demand skilled careers (e.g. single, unskilled parents training as electricians or plumbers). That feels like it would be a more durable, multi-generational benefit.
But again, this is just a grant programme.
> not a UBI
Who said it is a UBI that this "rebuttal" even makes sense to appear here? The Irish government isn't calling it a UBI. The article doesn't call it a UBI. Even the FAQ for the program says it is not UBI:
>> Why this is not a Universal Basic Income
>> It is important to note that that the Basic Income for the Arts Pilot is not a Universal Basic Income. This is a sectoral intervention to support practicing artists and creative arts workers to focus on their creative practice. This policy is separate to the Universal Basic income as outlined in the Programme for Government.
https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-culture-communications-a... - C-f for "universal"
Basic Income and UBI are colloquially synonyms, people use them interchangeably, and the Irish government are almost certainly using it to endear themselves to supporters of UBI and to get more coverage for their policy than media would give them if they just called it a grant.
This happens all the time. For example, in the UK there was a push for a "living wage" in the 2010s, which the government responded to by rebranding the minimum wage the "National Living Wage" and bumping it a little for over-25s.
This seems to be the same thing.
The first word of UBI is universal. The entire concept relies on that characteristic.
Society needs art. Artists produce art. There a pantheon of greats that had no commercial success in their lives but moved our culture, we’d be so much more culturally impoverished if we’d insisted they become shit plumbers.
It is not a grant. It is UBI. People who advocated for UBI always said they will spend time creating art, etc. if they didn’t have to work for income. So here it is, the dream come true.
It's not UBI unless they respect the U.
Ok, let me guess, without looking at the article .... is it a "pilot" that's rolled out to a small number of people, for a limited period of time, and its success is judged by surveying those people on whether they were happy to get free money? I bet it was.
> It also recouped more than the trial's net cost of 72 million euros ($86 million) through [...] and reduced reliance on other social welfare payments,
Which sounds quite a bit like "we spent more on one type of welfare so we ended up spending less on a different type of welfare." Which, okay, good, but I don't think you can say you "recouped" anything.
If you want to criticize the study, it would be best to actually read the method rather than make assumptions.
Would you happen to have a link to that?
No
Close
> Ireland rolled out a permanent basic income scheme for the arts on Tuesday, pledging to pay 2,000 creative workers 325 euros ($387) per week following a trial that participants said eased financial strain and allowed them to spend more time on projects.
> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle. O'Donovan said he would like to increase the number of recipients over time.
> Over 8,000 applicants applied for the 2,000 places in the pilot scheme.
> A report on the trial found it lowered the likelihood of artists experiencing enforced deprivation, and reduced their levels of anxiety and reliance on supplementary income.
If the Irish truly want this, I'm glad for them.
But in my view, arts should be funded by people in private. Any spare resources the government can muster up should be invested in improving the security and quality of life for its people. If no one ever goes hungry, and their medical needs are met swiftly, and justice is swift and accessible to all. then I can see the appeal in funding arts. But even then, sciences can meaningfully and in the long-term improve humans' lives.
I don't even know if the arts would benefit from this. Will the government arbitrate whose art is better? Private persons would, they won't fund a terrible artist. and from what I know about artists, the rejection and failure is instrumental to revelations and breakthroughs in their art. Without that, will the state be funding or facilitating mediocrity in art?
Imagine if this was for entrepreneurs. If the government will provide income so long as you're starting businesses. If you didn't have much to begin with, it might prevent you from giving up businesses that are failing, hold on to that restaurant years after it's failed because you like the vibe, and your needs are met. But if you'll eventually be in danger of running out of money to support yourself, you'll be forced to shut doors early, learn lessons and move on to something better.
I'm just making a case against dreams being kept alive artificially on life-support. And of the consequence of not having adversity when needed. I don't know if it's true, but I remember an analogy of artificial biospheres failing to grow trees and plants early on, because they didn't simulate wind. the trees needed the resistance, push and adversity of wind to thrive.
But I'll digress, I'm not saying Ireland did wrong, just putting my thoughts on the subject out there. They know what they're doing, I'm sure. And this is sounding too much like damn linkedin post, and on HN too of all places, talking about entrepreneurship, shame on me! :)
>pledging to pay 2,000 creative workers 325 euros ($387) per week
>The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle.
Is it really correct to call this UBI? It is hardly universal if it applies to only 2000 selected artists.
Seems more like a 3-year grant, similar to the art grants awarded by the national endowment for the arts.
The term universal isn't used in the article.
All these places use the word UNCONDITIONAL instead of UNIVERSAL because they are scared of printing money and paying all their citizens, while jacking up pigovian taxes on the other side.
Here is how to do it properly without waiting for the federal government and currency: https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-basi...
You can't solve real world social and economic problems with hare-brained cryptocurrency schemes. If you want to support local artists then just buy their art, or give them donations in real currency.
They've re-branded for the release, and removed "Universal".
It's not universal if only selected individuals get it. And you can't live on 325 euros in a place like Ireland. So it's not even basic income. But it's a nice temporary subsidy.
Proper basic income has never really been tried. It would have to be universal (for the entire population) and be enough to live on.
Most countries have non universal basic income in the form of benefits, state pensions, food stamps, and various social security insurance programs. One way or another people that can't or won't work still get enough to survive. Mostly, countries don't let their citizens starve. They mostly don't put them out on the streets. And if people get sick, generally hospitals/doctors will help. You won't necessarily get a very nice version of all that in most countries.
If you think of basic income like that, UBI is actually not that much of a departure from that status quo. It just establishes that as a bare minimum that everybody gets one way or another. The reason that the idea gets a lot of push back is that people have a lot of morals about having to earn stuff which then results in complex rules to qualify for things only if you are unable to earn a living. Which then turns into a lot of complex schemes to establish non universal income that comes into a variety of forms and shapes. But it adds up to the same result: everybody is taken care off.
A proper UBI would have to award it to anyone. That's what universal means. It would be a simplification of what we have now. If you are employed, you would get a chunk of income from UBI and the rest from your employer. Basically, you work to add income on top of your UBI and it's between you and your employer to sort out how much you work and how much you earn. If you get unemployed, you fall back to UBI. UBI would be untaxed. But if you work or earn income you pay taxes. Company earnings are taxed as well. And you pay VAT when you buy stuff. Those revenue streams are what already fund things today.
People think of UBI as extra cost but it could actually be a cost saving if done properly. There's a lot of bureaucracy that's no longer needed. You could still layer insurances and benefits on top of course. But that would be more optional. And you could incentivize people to work that are currently actively incentivized to not work (e.g. to not lose benefits or get penalized on their pensions).
People forget that the status quo is not free either and that it requires an enormous, convoluted bureaucracy that also costs money. UBI could end up being simpler and cheaper.
The hard part with UBI is balancing fairness and financial viability and implementing it in a way that isn't massively disruptive and complicated. You'd need to incentivize most people to still want to work while making the system generous enough that people can opt not to. That's not a solved problem and the key show stopper. Many people that work object against anyone getting anything for free. But if you consider the status quo, we already have a lot of people not working anyway. And we all pay for that already. That is actually a rather large percentage of people that are allowed to vote in many countries.
Mostly the moral arguments against UBI are what perpetuates the very inefficient and costly status quo. We just keep on making that harsher, more complicated, and more expensive. Effectively if you work, you are paying extra for all that inefficiency. Worse, you can work your ass off your whole life and still have to worry about having enough to retire, the affordability of housing, or being able to afford essential health care.
And "proper" UBI will never actually be tried, at least not on any significant scale. Because if you actually run the numbers you'll see that the level of taxation required plus the inflationary effects make the whole scheme unworkable.
Taxation and inflation are 2nd order effects. There's a deeper underlying reason.
The point of work is to produce the things we need to live. Somebody's gotta grow the crops, drive the trucks, mop the floors, crunch the numbers, process the paperwork, write the code, whatever.
If you offer enough UBI for people to live without working... the work won't get done, and things we need won't get made.
Has anyone ever tried to look at the concept of a Universal Basic Job? If you can show up semi-sober, you get paid to paint over graffiti, or pick up trash along the road, or something.
This is kinda what minimum wage jobs are? You could say depression era WPA/CCC programs were an example of a government providing this.
No, minimum wage jobs are kind of the opposite. They push underqualified people to the side, since who wants to pay $15/hour for someone only capable of producing $5/hr of value. And most jobs generally come with more obligations, like "we need you here 2pm - 10pm, Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday".
And? that's what "rolling out" is about, to test and gradually use the scheme if it works
The trouble is that paying a few people to not work is very very different from paying everyone to not work.
We need people to work to produce the things they need to live. As long as this remains true, UBI can never happen. This fantasy of being able to live without working is out of touch with the cold hard reality.
> As long as this remains true, UBI can never happen.
New Zealand pays a pension to everyone over 65, whether or not they are working. No means testing and little political will to move the age upward. About 25% of those over 65 work, and the percentage is growing.
There are multiple reasons this could be true (eg, limited savings forcing work). The lack of means testing obviously saves money and shenanigans working out who is entitled, though the ‘universal’ nature limited how much a needy recipient can get.
I argue this is a test case on UBI.
> paying a few people to not work
not in this case though. as explained elsewhere, the artist is a dying career choice in ireland owing to economic reasons. no artist == drub society therefore the incompetent government intervenes the only way incompetence approves: free money. making the state function is much harder, and that’s not what these politicians signed up for. reducing electricity bill by 50% is a herculean task so how about jacking up taxes in one place and giving it back as free money in another? this is the modus operandi of the irish government.
The problem is soon (and to some extent currently) there won't be enough work for everyone, and there definitely won't be enough to support them at a historical lifestyle level.
I guess those people continuing to live (or live semi-well) would be fantasy to you. I'm not sure where society will go at that point.
The western world has sold a 'we are improving your life' story to get buy in from the masses. What do you propose? Other options used in the past were typically state provided bread and circuses and/or waging war.
Your entire idea of economics is backwards.
There is more than enough work for everyone right now, and (outside of recessions) we will not run out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
As more and more work is automated, the lifestyle level increases rather than decreases. Automation lets you produce more with the same amount of labor, increasing productivity and raising the standard of living. This is the sole reason we're not subsistence farmers right now.
War does not help the masses; it is purely destructive and one of the worst things you can do for the economy in the long run.
And yet my kids standard of living is worse. Their optimism about their employment is worse. I never used to know people working multiple very menial part time jobs to survive other than people restarting their lives. When I was young people working second jobs were saving money for a vacation or using them to pay for a fancy car, not as part of their basic budget/means of earning an income.
"Ray Dalio says America is developing a ‘dependency’ on the top 1% of workers, while the bottom 60% are struggling and unproductive"
https://fortune.com/2025/10/27/ray-dalio-america-dependeny-t...
"Millions of Americans Are Becoming Economically Invisible " https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45374779
War is unproductive and a destructive use of resources but that doesn't change that it has historically be an outlet for unused labor. My point was that if we don't approach things intelligently/intentionally we can end up with crappy unwanted/unintentional outcomes.
How soon is "soon"? I don't know about Ireland but the US unemployment rate remains near record lows. We still don't have robots that can snake out a plugged toilet.
I'm not sure the exact trajectory but it's going pretty quickly now.
"Ray Dalio says America is developing a ‘dependency’ on the top 1% of workers, while the bottom 60% are struggling and unproductive"
https://fortune.com/2025/10/27/ray-dalio-america-dependeny-t...
"Millions of Americans Are Becoming Economically Invisible " https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45374779
Ray Dalio says a lot of things, only about half are correct. Where is the data? Employers are quick to fire unproductive workers and yet the unemployment rate remains low.
The figures exclude workers who would like to work but have given up, and those who work part-time but would like a full-time job.
The U-6 rate is nearly twice the rate of the official figures.
Does the government get equity in the artist's work? If one of the recipients turns out to be the next Picasso, and makes say $1 million selling a painting (either as an NFT or a traditional art auction), does he have to give the $1 million to the government?
here is the government report - https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/b87d2659/20250929_BIA...
The cost benefit analysis includes a euro value to attribute to better wellbeing, using the WELLBY framework and apply £13,000 per WELLBY
So good for Ireland!!
> Ireland began the three-year trial in 2022
Did anyone take a note of what kind of output the artists produced? Was any of it any good?
Is art subjective?
Is cash?
"basic income scheme for a few selected artists"
“Ireland offers long-term grants for artists” is how this would have been written 50 years ago.
The idea is not new, only the rhetoric.
Grants operate differently over here. You have to write a submission, proposing works and budget and generally justifying. It is assessed by a committee. Politics gets involved. And a few people get larger chunks of money and the people holding the purse strings retain control on what is produced. It is essentially work on commission for the government, except you rarely get 100% of your costs covered.
Whereas in this Irish program, it is less money for more people chosen by lottery. The only editorial control is who is qualified to enter the lottery. It is also subsidizing the artist and not the art work, with artists working in cheap mediums receiving the same as artists dealing with high costs. So you are still going to need a grant or commission if you work in monumental bronze.
That seems like... insane discrimination ?
Yes, most of us are programmers. The government should support us, too, since we'll soon be less useful than trad musicians.
It... isn't?
That's an interesting idea. One has to test things to see if they can be made to work.
I think the amount is something that can be disputed, but the underlying idea is, IMO, a sound one. Similar to the "unconditional basic income" idea - again, the amount can be contemplated, but the idea is sound, even more so as there are more and more superrich ignoring regular laws or buying legislation in a democracy. That means the old model simply does not work. Something has to change - which path to pick can be debated, but something has to be done.
>The randomly selected applicants
Why would you want to randomly select here?
That's the best way to do it. Otherwise all the money will go to the rich brat children of politicians/etc who are socially connected to whoever they put on the selection committees.
I'm not sure that's true. What kind of rich brat will go through the trouble of all that for a couple hundred euros a month?
Random isn't a bad way of doing it in any case though.
I agree that it's a problem. But how do you prevent it from been overflowed by people like me that can't draw a circle with the bottom of a bottle?
Dunno tbqh. Maybe the media will police it by shaming people who abuse it.
Why wouldn't you? How do you define merit to artists? Many of the greatest artists of all time lived their entire lives in poverty and desperation.
To not have selection bias so you can measure the effects
Random selection is possibly the fairest way to select almost anything, depending on your definition of fair.
Mostly because the kind of people who run and advocate for programs like this are actively hostile to the idea of merit. Prioritizing talented people would be antithetical to them.
I bet you also think government shouldn't be picking winners and losers.
And thinks that s/he's a winner and the stuff s/he enjoys is made by winners, and the stuff s/he doesn't like is made by losers. Merit, universal, objective = ME; Worthless, narcissistic, special interest = YOU.
Prioritizing merit would be fine if there was some way to measure merit empirically, and if that measure couldn't be gamed by anybody with money and/or connections. But this is for artists, so...
> Ireland's Culture Minister Patrick O'Donovan said the scheme was the first permanent one of its kind in the world [...] The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years, after which they would not be eligible for the next three-year cycle.
So it's permanent, but the recipients don't get it permanently?
The program was run as a trial (time limited, not permanent). They've now made it a permanent program (no time limit, not temporary).
So to answer your question: Yes, it's permanent (or as permanent as any gov't program can be), but the recipients don't get the money for an indefinite span of time (permanently).
Won't this kind of shaft their employment prospects as well?
Other industries don't move as fast but a 3 year layoff in tech could be a career death sentence.
Do they have to be unemployed during the grant period? They could still find commissions and other stuff during that time or sell their art. And I guess for an artist either way you have a lot of new portfolio entries?
> Do they have to be unemployed during the grant period?
No, they're allowed to have other work or earn money from their art. The intent is to subsidize their income, not be their exclusive income for those three years.
> The randomly selected applicants will receive the payments for three years
Budgets are limited so they can't give to everyone all the time. They give each batch of artists money for 3 years and then move to the next batch. Interesting to see if there's a chance they start looping over.
<rant>
the irish government is adept at misplaced priorities, (very) short-term thinking, pursuers of feel-good vibes, basically everything besides running a state. incompetence here has bred the need for more and varied welfare programs just so we can have a variety of careers that cater to the needs of life. of course, necessity of the arts is undisputed. but can the artist make a career here when the money you make from a show, including tips, can’t pay your utility bills? when your income can’t afford you decent accommodation?
</rant>
Really cool! Looking forward to the findings of that study!
Dublin's Grafton Street with it's buskers is and was so unique to this American. I wondered if anywhere else in the world matches the musicianship heard on that street and in Dublin's bars? Music is engrained in it's culture in a way I have not experienced before(tho the weird looks I received wearing my baseball cap in Dublin was off putting as I had not experienced that in Berlin, Paris, Reykjavik, Amsterdamn, etc).
Overall It's a bit sad going to American bars and not hearing the whole bar singing along to the musician up on stage. Amercia's culture I feel is way more focused on celebrity then musicianship.
Why is "singing along" a relevant metric?
In Dublin's best music venues, nobody is singing along because it's brand new material from brand new artists. If you're singing along to well known songs in Temple Bar then I'm afraid you're missing some of the best music the city has to offer, in venues like Whelan's, Workmans, Sin É, The Grand Social etc.
Because in America we do not appreciate local musicians as i experienced in Dublin nor do we sing alongs in majority of our bars (maybe there are a few but none ive been to throughout the US & its not apart of our culture). We are a more subdued culture in this regards and as I believe worship/appreciate celebrity musicians over local musicians.
Grafton St buskers at their best are really really good, but there are also some very average buskers there every day too. New Orleans is a stand-out in the US where you can find world-class jazz bands playing on the streets.
Nashville has plenty in the evenings, and then you can find hot spots in some cities. I've seen regular buskers in Boston, Seattle, Sarasota, and Boulder - usually in pedestrianized touristy quarters.
Guess it's Dublin's bar culture and vibe that really stood out to me. I've been to the French Quarter yet don't recall almost everyone in each bar there singing along to their local musicians. Musicians who are really good to great like in Dublin's bars I experienced in December.
I need to hear more about the baseball cap thing.
Europeans don't really play baseball, presumably they all wear football and cricket hats instead.
I heard Emily Blunt say on Graham Norton, "We know your American with your baseball cap." I know that's the UK but maybe it holds true for Dublin too.
The looks were strange and from women in their 20s as I walked around Dublin. Im not much to look at yet do not receive such looks or rude behavior (one purposely did not hold the bathroom door at starbucks as I waited my turn 25 feet away waiting to get in rather she purposely pushed the door to close) at home in the DC region or my travels throughout the US and Europe. Another American mentioned a similar experience too. My friend traveling with me he was not wearing a hat & did not experience any such thing.
No, that's just Europe. First, they often pay to visit a bathroom there so the pushing the door close is just preventing you from freeloading. Second, Europe is denser than the US and so has cultures that don't have as negative a take on being rude. Some parts are worse than others.
Busking and live music is definitely still around. Especially in larger cities. I agree that the neighborhood bar scene sucks but that's more an issue that everyone has to drive home. Once you get to a place with good transportation or a downtown hub it all comes roaring back.