when budgets for artistic projects don't budget for artists.

[UglyCasanova]

because you have been a broke/young/upcoming artist in capitalist America, of course, and are not simply constructing a straw man. Certainly you have more of an insight into the process than I do.

This goes back to my criteria question. How do you differentiate a 'true artist' from 'someone who wants to be an artist and wants to be given money to do it'?

That first argument is bs.

'Do you run a farm?'
'No.'
'Then you can't have a say in whether animals are being mistreated in the food industry.'

If you can only comment on things you have personal experience with or is directly connected to you, there's not much anyone can discuss.

That's lazy rhetoric. Next.

I am majoring in Ameican culture and literature, btw. So to say I have no insight is a little insulting, but never mind that.

As for your second question, that's a 50 page paper, and it's tricky one at that.

[D.o.S.]

Nevermind what my criterias are, I'm just saying that as a broke/young/upcoming artist in capitalist America, the market will, to a bigger extent, make you produce something to fill this gap rather than what you actually would have made if you didn't have the financial aspect hanging over you.

This is absolutely a straw man, in that you're absolutely ignoring the actual point (that readers of 50SoG would not necessarily flock to 'true art' or 'art of significant worth' or however you want to define it) in favor of an abstraction that favors, essentially, a patronage system -- which is a good point!... That you dodge discussing with claims towards brevity. You could be majoring in basketweaving and your point would have exactly the same flaws. See below:

Slightly more to the point: why is your assumption that EL James wouldn't have written 50 shades of Grey if she was being paid to be a "true artist" -- if that's not the assumption, my mistake, but that's what it seems to be from reading your post?

[D.o.S.]

To put my point in another form of consumptive media and American culture: the folks that eat at McDonalds will not necessarily go to eat at a 'real' restaurant if McDonalds isn't around. This isn't because McDonalds exists, but because they don't have any interest in "true gastronomy", if you'll allow that. "The Market" for culinary art is not comprised of the same people who will happily eat fast food (there's a Venn diagram there I'm sure but you know what I mean I hope). The same is true for literature, e.g. 50SoG.

[UglyCasanova]

Nevermind what my criterias are, I'm just saying that as a broke/young/upcoming artist in capitalist America, the market will, to a bigger extent, make you produce something to fill this gap rather than what you actually would have made if you didn't have the financial aspect hanging over you.

This is absolutely a straw man, in that you're absolutely ignoring the actual point (that readers of 50SoG would not necessarily flock to 'true art' or 'art of significant worth' or however you want to define it)

In what way am I constructing a straw man? My personal criteria are not relevant to the discussion. My point is that goverment funded artistry is positive, because it gives artists the opportunity to produce art even though their consumer base is so small that they would be unable to make a profit, and hence not be able to produce what they initially had intended (if anything at all). My first post was discussing the issue for artists WITHIN the capitalist system. The second post moved on to how government funded artistry promotes diversity, counteracting the tendency of pushing artists into populistic genres and expressions in order to make a living. We're obviously discussing two different things.

edit:

To put my point in another form of consumptive media and American culture: the folks that eat at McDonalds will not necessarily go to eat at a 'real' restaurant if McDonalds isn't around. This isn't because McDonalds exists, but because they don't have any interest in "true gastronomy", if you'll allow that. "The Market" for culinary art is not comprised of the same people who will happily eat fast food (there's a Venn diagram there I'm sure but you know what I mean I hope). The same is true for literature, e.g. 50SoG.

This is MY point

McDonalds is populism in my take on this discussion.

[D.o.S.]

Well that settles that then.

[Chuckchuck]

Aside, 501c3 or 501c can offer tax voucher for stated value of donated items or services. Keep that in yr pocket next time you axe someone to donate goods or services.

There is no true or untrue artist; there is only street-value of the product.

[HighDeaf1080p]

We aren't a non-profit organization...it just happens to work out that way because our customers can't PAY us. We are a pseudo-political entity of the state of Colorado, which means we don't pay taxes on things we buy, but cannot offer tax deductions for donations (as I understand it from my limited view of things...I'm the campus architect). People have to CARE what happens to the cities poor and homeless for us to get any donations.

Which is why it blows me away when a giant band like One Republic donates a concert to us.

[echoraven]

... "true gastronomy",...

Awesome band name....

[Chuckchuck]

Cool. I'm afraid I don't know who One Republic is. I'll look them up.
I live under a rock and I don't have electricity or running water.

[Chuckchuck]

Well that settles that then.

But do you like literature and eat at McDonald's?