Comment by at_a_remove | Hacker News Reader

Comment by at_a_remove | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

> Artists do not need to justify their existence. They do need to justify their desire to obtain access to other people's money.

I reiterate my comment. Scientists and engineers get billions of dollars of other peoples' money, both private and public.

Regarding the rest of your comment, art is not the arts. The arts include theater, music, dance, etc.

Scientist and engineers also need to justify their desire for other people's money.

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"

"and why do you want more money?"

"because it'll make me happy"

"why not just buy this lovely [painting/poem/record] instead, it'll directly give you joy"

fr nothing pisses me off more than people saying that only STEM education is valuable

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com