Ireland's Basic Income for the Arts experiment has given creatives a weekly payment for three years. Now, a permanent program could be on the way.

As Ireland’s $1,500-a-month basic income pilot program for creatives nears its end in February, officials have to answer a simple question: Is it worth it?

With four months to go, they say the answer is yes.

Earlier this month, Ireland’s government announced its 2026 budget, which includes “a successor to the pilot Basic Income Scheme for the Arts to begin next year” among its expenditures.

Ireland is just one of many places experimenting with guaranteed basic income programs, which provide recurring, unrestricted payments to people in a certain demographic. These programs differ from a universal basic income, which would provide payments for an entire population.

  • Cataphract@lemmy.mlEnglish
    51·
    5 hours ago

    I’m not even sure if clarification came come to someone who’s perceived view of “the arts” is already so negatively embedded into a capitalistic hellscape. I was fortunate enough to have an upbringing around artists and schools that encourage expression through the crafts (even in the south, it was a strange/beautiful time).

    My suggestion would be to look into Graffiti art if you’re trying to understand the non-commercialized sectors and the impacts they can have on society (link). It’s not always about the work itself, but the inspiration it may cause others as well.

    If that doesn’t help, try to think of it in terms of another non-paid sector. Should the government promote FOSS creators with an income if the output improves society as a whole? This is an investment into a society you wish to see, such like education, not a financial statement which needs to show profits at the end of the quarter.

    Biggest difference, if your company has a profitable year… who gets the extra income? An artists effect isn’t valued in “capital produced” unless your an art dealer/corporation which is a whole different sector you might be confusing with an actual “artist”. Art begets art, art inspires and motivates dreams and visions, it’s such a long philosophical debate you can see it being drawn out by Plato in The Republic if you had the joy of taking any intro-philosophy classes (you should look into it, you might agree with some of the cases presented).

    Lastly, an abundance of art has always been controlled by the wealthy (might be why you view it as a commercialized product).

    Monarchy and aristocracy

    In previous centuries the power and wealth of monarchs, emperors and other supreme rulers gave them enormous influence over the employment of artists and changes in artistic taste and style. Understandably their portraits are the largest and grandest, and their palaces are the most richly decorated with expensive paintings.

    Taxing said wealth, and allowing the people to freely express themselves without the moderation of the wealthy is a step forward from what was previously and currently being used for the artistic pipeline (you must produce the most valued or commercialize-able creations to continue existing). If the monarchs and wealthy of the world can’t convince you that art is important (their art in this instance), I’m not sure how to reach you if it’s just a stubborn personal take you refuse to budge from.