Law Looks to Subsidize Housing for Artists

Why are artists deserving of housing assistance? I can think of many other professions - teachers, social workers, police officers, etc. - far more integral to the operation of NYC. Most art can be imported (books, film, touring musicians), so why do artists need to actually reside within the city limits, especially prime neighborhoods like Dumbo?

Give the assistance to those who really make our city great, not to those who want to give their friends and relatives free wine and cheese at gallery openings.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:21 AM

This is bulls--t, more of my taxpayer money to people who refuse to work. Millman better hope they vote because she will not get mine any longer

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:28 AM

How quickly they forget that it was artists who moved into fringe areas, in turn making them the 'prime areas' of which you speak.
Soho, Dumbo, Williamsburg etc. etc......

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:30 AM

Artists have spurred the growth of many neighborhoods and contribute to the color of the city. With musems, theatres and other venues throughout New York, of course art can be imported, but withoout an active community of artists living and working locally, the city would be much less vibrant, NYC would cease to be a cultural capital, and the arts would become more curatorial. I'm very pleased to hear of these grants. That said, these days, I don't think 2-year grants of up to $12,000 will get artists far in DUMBO of all neighborhoods.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:31 AM

9:28, you're just jealous that you don't have an artistic bone in your body.
Being an artist is harder work than you've probably ever faced in your pitiful life.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:33 AM

Hey 9:28 Im sure your an artist, who wants a handout. If you love your art be a waiter part-time to pay your rent and do your art thing on your free time, freeloaders. We had no problem before these handouts becoming a vibrant artistic city, now all of a sudden my tax dollars have to pay your rent. Work for a living like the rest of us. Besides cops and firefighters should get the subsidies first, at least they deserve it.

Whose jealous, yes I want to be poor and take handouts to pay my rent so I can paint all day then if I don't become famous jump out a window. We all can't be artisitic freeloaders.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:40 AM

You may not be able to recognize the contribution that these people make until they have reached a certain level of achievemnet like that they have written a best selling book or made an award winning film or become recognizable musicians.

Dumbo, along with countless other city neighborhoods, is prime because of artists.

I think that the tricky thing with giving money to artists is that there are usually a few people deciding whether the art is good enough to foster. I think that ultimately it should be market driven. If you can't sell paintings you shouldn't be getting money.

As for teachers, social workers, police there is a distinctive difference that it takes a bit more to be up and running as an artist ( I assume that they are not talking about people with 9-5 creative jobs). People who can do things that many others cannot get paid to do so. I mean no disrespect to the noble professions that you mentioned but if teachers for instance want to be paid more they should support evaluations and merit based pay. Then could a teacher claim and back up that they can do things that other teachers can't.

My parents are retired teachers.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:45 AM

i think they forget a bigger contributer to making a area nice it is immigrants!!

should we now subsidize immigrants housing too?

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:47 AM

I'm surprised to see all the uber-capitalists here squawking about handouts to artists. If the artist housing does end up in DUMBO it'll enhance property values there by making DUMBO a more "interesting," "vibrant" neighborhood where at least a few people think about something besides the value of the portfolio they manage.

Is that any different than what the city did by fixing up that little traffic island in DUMBO and putting benches there? It's about investing in neighborhood assets the marketplace doesn't provide. And if you object to that idea, imagine a city with no subways, dirt roads, bands of mercenary police, and millions of people who never went to school.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:51 AM

Er, we do subsidize immigrants' housing...Section 8, etc., for refugees. Or should they live in the shelters?

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:52 AM

Artists are the group that consistently take the risks and move into questionable neighborhoods. Instead of keeping artists in already reestablished places, I would like to see the money used instead to direct artists to new places, like Bed-Stuy.

Although I don't think 40-50 units is going to do anything to stem the tide of artists running to Philly. That's a great town, lots of culture, and lots of cheap space.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:52 AM

Don't we already do that? A bit off topic but my friend is an immigrant, illegally, and her children go to school and get assistance and medical and foodstamps. SHe can do everything here but work, legally.

BTW, Immigrants can be artists too. And many are.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:52 AM

Firefighters and policemen are PAID to to their jobs. Why should they then be subsidized? I am not suggesting that they are not deserving of their pay and more, but that's not the place for grant money.

Grants for artists are intended to help foster them until they can establish themselves, create and market a body of work. These are two-year grants - not life-long subsidies.

Plus, this is a drop in the bucket. And, arts funding has been cut dramtically in recent years.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 10:03 AM

nice to foster up-and-coming artists... but you know what really fosters up-and-coming artists? Established artists. More and more established artists (ex. sean scully) are leaving their studios in NYC because of it's police state atmosphere.

The photo above is truly telling... artist's got kicked out of dumbo so luxury lofts could be built... why don't we find these communities ; the ones that have already established themselves, and let them live and work.

It's lame to think of some board deciding what artist is good enough to live here.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 10:28 AM

From a recent (June '07) newspaper:

"The results of a new study by the Alliance for the Arts show the art industry in New York City and State is a vital and integral part of the economy with an economic impact of $21.2 billion and generating more than 160,000 jobs.

"The study, supported by the New York City Economic Development Corporation and New York State Development Corporation, estimates the economic contribution of the arts industry in New York City has grown 86% since the study was first done in 1983 and 61% since the last study in 1993. In addition to the benefits of spending by all the components of the industries, arts, as an industry, generated $904 million in local taxes to the city.

"In New York City, nonprofit cultural organizations make a major contribution to the city's economy, totaling $5.8 billion in 2005, doubling since it was first measured in 1982 and the sector that has shown the most economic growth."

Forget about the tedium of living in a city without artists. Want your taxes to go up? Eliminate the arts in NYC.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 10:40 AM

Why do so many people on this site think that "the market" is some ahistorical, naturally-occurring, not to be questioned arbiter of truth, wisdom and social value? The market is an abstract concept, just as manipulated and changeable as anything else--engineered by entities like banks, the fed, governments and inter-governmental organizations. By taking the market as some god-given monolith you just absolve yourself of any responsibility to help effect positive changes.

As American manufacturing continues to decline and even many service industry jobs are eliminated, cultural capital becomes one of America's greatest and most important resources. Cultural production and creativity cannot be shipped overseas or done by robots so we should be supporting creative endeavors in our city while we can. Art isn't just some luxury, it's one of the things that defines an advanced society. Although I guess once we slide back into the dark ages when science is discredited and millions of serfs swear fealty to the local landowner, the church will start using some of the proceeds from our mandatory tithes for artists to work on those pretty stained glass windows and painted ceilings. Hopefully.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 10:51 AM

The biggest problem with subsidizing art is that it beaurocracizes creativity.

It's so hard to take something that should be viewed objectively and put it to a subjective test of being worthy of fostering. Who are these board people anyway? Why do they get to decide. I'll bet that they pick really safe art and art that isn't too political.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 10:53 AM

Anyone remember, that before the Twin Towers went down, there were two entire floors in the upper 90's or so of the first building, that were donated to a multitude of artists? Apparently this went on for years, and created a crazy mix of artists and suits in the same vicinity. Most unlikely of places, to foster an arts community of sorts, wouldn't you say? Unless the Watchtower yokels have space to donate, I think Dumbo is done, as in, I think there are more interesting places in NYC for artists to gather, albeit less that glamorous. They're probably there already...

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 10:54 AM

"By taking the market as some god-given monolith you just absolve yourself of any responsibility to help effect positive changes."

Because you know what is best for people more than they do? How elitist!

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 10:55 AM

"By taking the market as some god-given monolith you just absolve yourself of any responsibility to help effect positive changes."

Because you know what is best for people more than they do? How elitist!
Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 10:55 AM

I would really like to know how you inferred this statement was elitist. As I understand you: questioning or participating in the decision-making processes or trying to change society in any way is inherently elitist?

I always thought elitism was when a small, select group of supposedly-superior individuals made the decisions for everyone else. When you and everyone you know contributes/participates/has a voice--I though that was democracy?

Dunno, maybe I'm way off base and it's actually the other way around.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:04 AM

since all the luxury condos used the selling point of DUMBO as an artistic neighborhood, there's been a conscious effort made by developers to keep artists in dumbo. recent high profile (shepard fairy) and more grassroots (Illegalart.org's TO DO) shows reflect that, as well as galapagos slated to move there. like the subsidized work/live spaces, it's not an organic artist community, but there is still art in DUMBO.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:10 AM

When you and everyone you know contributes/participates/has a voice--I though that was democracy?

Everyone you know meaning the bulk of the country that doesn't care about art or ever visit museums? Or do you mean you and your small select elitist arstist friends that are trying to change society to be "more cultured" and more like them?

The "market" is that collective voice.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:16 AM

10:53 AM - I agree, it is a "problem with subsidizing art is that it bureaucratizes creativity." However, everything is a bureaucracy here. Artists are kicked out of live/work spaces b/c of bureaucratic zoning practices, etc. Though the idea of some board making these determinations makes me cringe, that's how grants are given, it's standard practice... and it's still worth it.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:18 AM

Private benefactors are even better.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:23 AM

I bet Dave Walentas, the "Neighborhood Creator and Patron of the Arts" DUMBO Developer, and his art-loving, carousel-restoring wife, Jane are pushing for Millman and DUMBO "which has been fingered as a possible location for the units."

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:26 AM

"Firefighters and policemen are PAID to to their jobs. Why should they then be subsidized?"

The point really is -why is someone doing a job that they can't be paid doing? That is called a hobby.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:30 AM

Leave it to the self-proclaimed Pied Piper of Dumbo to get the politicians behind this. DUMBO seems a ludicrous choice of locations.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:30 AM

Sour grapes from the artists that have been on the Walentas dole and couldn't get anything rolling in their free two years?

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:33 AM

Artists are not the reasons that areas like Dumbo are prime - that credit belongs to the yuppies that follow and bring the amenities.

Once and for all, why do artists insist that they alone make a neighborhood? They act as though vast areas of Brooklyn were nothing but sand and scrub brush before they arrived with their paintbrushes, easels, and eternally outstretched palms, demanding that the govt. subsidize their "genius".

I'll take an i-banker or corporate lawyer any day over these adult children.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:51 AM

The Walentas started out as idealistic artsy types. If their experience isn't a cautionary tale of the how the art community will turn on you if you're not starving...

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:53 AM

11:15 C'mon- the artists lay the groundwork for the yuppies by setting up camp in an uninhabited areas. Yuppies will not move directly onto piss covered streets filled with junkies and homeless people- with no amenities. Artists will.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:58 AM

Believe it or not, 9:45, teaching and social work are not professions that just anyone can do. They're far more complicated than merely passing a civil service exam. In the end, teaching children to read and helping the less fortunate seem far more central to the operation of NYC than displaying paintings or showing short films to your friends and relatives.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 12:09 PM

There is so much crap being made. Someone needs to tell at least half of these artists to throw in the towel.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 12:11 PM

12:09- A huge number of people are capable of working in those professions.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 12:14 PM

I taught my kid to read. Not so hard.Oh and I've helped the less fortunate. No training at all.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 12:17 PM

The SOHO artist loft experiment was not very successful - why try it again. It is hard to enforce and is unfair to the many who do not qualify. There are other programs out there that artists should apply for like Inclusionary Housing. More developments are now required to provide more affordable housing. The bureaucratic infrastructure is already there, artists just need to apply, I don't think making a new gov't giveaway will do much.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 12:39 PM

I am a manufacturer,(custom furniture,I guess that makes me kinda artistic).After being pushed out of dumbo,I now facing being pushed out of East Williamsberg because "artists" keep "discovering" "blighted" areas zoned for industry.Imagine how fast New York City will be completly devoid of light industry and working craftspeople when the artists recieve subsidies to illegally live in industrially zoned areas.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 1:00 PM

I don't even know anyone who goes to art museums, so why aren't we redeveloping the Met as a site for light industry?
I especially hate theater and if this grant thing goes down I will be PO'ed if any of MY money goes to those losers who think I want to see their stupid plays. I'll be damned if my tax dollars are wasted on some leotard-wearing primadonna who wants to live it up in a fancy loft that I couldn't ever afford no matter how hard I work.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 2:55 PM

Nice try at sarcasm. I hope that you are not writing plays. Your last sentence needs clarification. Does your primadonna "want" to live in a loft that you will never be able to afford or does the person actually live in a fancy loft and get tax dollars? I don't know why I'm asking. The voice that you have created for those opposed this kind of spending is so ... I'm trying to think of some nice word.

I know that you can walk in another's shoes. Just try. Opposing this spending is not an anti-art position. Also if you go to any museum or performance you will see that all the evil banks and large corporations fund them and that there are many benevolent wealthy people that also support them financially. Don't forget that people also pay admission to see plays, dance performanes and to visit museums- so why should all these people spend even more of their money for artists to produce mostly substandard work that needs to be subsidized because no person would ever want to buy it?

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 3:52 PM

It's true. If you read programs you always see the names of those nasty multi-million dollar earning CEO's.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 4:00 PM

11:30 (first post) is a dickhead.

You think any other businesses in an extremely competitive field which don't immediately turn a profit are only practicing a "hobby"? Try telling all those people who invested in dot coms in 2001 that they were investing in a "hobby" and not a business (well, aaaaactually... ha ha).

And Mother Theresa and Gandhi weren't paid - was humanitarian aid their "hobby"?

Besides, they ARE paid. It's called self employment. When you're not working for a bank or insurance company or other large business, you have to carry all the overhead yourself. Besides, you don't think the city gives MAJOR financial incentives for other businesses? Tax breaks for banks, developers, sports franchises and so on? Give me a break.

There's a reason New York attracts so many people (who put their money in all those banks and fuel development and drive the media industry and spend money on the rent in your and my in-home rental unit). There's a reason why New York is a cultural hub and Hartford, Milwaukee and Detroit are not.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 4:06 PM

"I don't even know anyone who goes to art museums, so why aren't we redeveloping the Met as a site for light industry?"

For the record MOST people DO NOT go to art museums or plays or to see dance or even to see live music.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 4:06 PM

If you can't make money- it is not a job. It is a hobby.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 4:09 PM

Besides, they ARE paid. It's called self employment.

Someone paying your rent is not self employed.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 4:13 PM

Also, 11:30, why don't we just kick everyone off welfare (since they have no income they are worthless, right)?

For that matter, let's start back charging the Mets, Yankees, Knicks and all the other sports franchises for all those years they've gotten sweet deals from the city?

Even the Dodgers should pay for the time they were in Brooklyn!

And all those schools and teachers, garbage workers, postal workers, police and other city workers too!!! All the way up to Bloomberg - does HE need subsidized housing???) They're all bums if they can't turn their trade into a profit-making business! They don't deserve handouts!

Thank God we're at least doing right by the health care, pharmaceutical and health insurance industry in America! Now there's an industry that knows how to make a profit!

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 4:13 PM

4:09 - try telling that to ex Enron employees.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 4:15 PM

They're all bums if they can't turn their trade into a profit-making business!

True that.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 4:24 PM

Is someone here suggesting that businesses should not have to be profitable to exist or at least self-sustaining?

I know that there are many examples of businesses that aren't- like the Federal Government- but someone thinks that is cool?

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 4:30 PM

why don't we just kick everyone off welfare (since they have no income they are worthless, right)?

Ah, my liberal friend- yes, I would love to kick most people off welfare but that's your spoon-feeding that makes you jump to the conclusion that I would view them as being worthless based on their income.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 4:40 PM

"And all those schools and teachers, garbage workers, postal workers, police and other city workers too!!! All the way up to Bloomberg - does HE need subsidized housing???) They're all bums if they can't turn their trade into a profit-making business! They don't deserve handouts!"

They work for the government. Should artists be government employees?

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 4:49 PM

Teachers, garbage workers, postal workers, police and other city workers provide a needed service. Not only do artists not provide a service- many of them do not provide goods that anyone would ever want or need.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 4:57 PM

It is strange that the government will offer something like this when if they hadn't cut so many school arts programs we might actually be able to produce more talented people and a larger audience to support our creative people.

The Dickhead who's actually a c-u-n-t head.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 5:02 PM

I am a teacher and artist AND I live in Dumbo and work in the Bronx. Who needs more improvement? NOT DUMBO. Give $ to artists to buy in the Bronx! The Bronx has the highest poverty rate.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:05 PM

The only people in this city who truly deserve handouts are investment bankers and media moguls because they (we) pay for every goddamn thing in this city. Big bonuses=big taxes=police, fire departments, subways, etc. NY should do anything they can to keep such earners here and not in Jersey. But, that would be a little to crazy, even for New York. So how about NO subsidies for anyone, and you either make it here or you don't? Sounds good to me. An artist should be poor so they don't sell out. A cushy artist is a liar.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 9:20 PM

LOOK: there are industries which are neccessary or at least beneficial to a community or other entity, be it on a corporate, city, state, federal or global level and sometimes they get hand outs from the government.

So here are a few examples:

Take, for instance, the airline industry. They're constantly getting bailed out of one thing or another. Without them, we would all lose our infrastructure, so the government keeps bailing them out.

Or look at Corbis (speaking of visual arts and commerce). They've never been profitable, but they're supported by Mr. Bill (Gates) and his many profitable enterprises, such as developing evil, crappy software which will some day show Corbis-licensed photos on your digital walls or that stupid multi-touch coffee table thing they made. Where do you think they got that stupid landscape image on every Windows PC desktop?

Or look at Calvin Klein - you think the main fashion line and the huge extravigant fashion shows make a profit and support the company? Nope, they just serve to make the brand "cool". It's really the cheap, crappy, fall-apart underwear that supports the company (which is pretty much the only thing that underwear supports)...

OK so to put it in "business" terms, think of the artists in NYC as the "ancillary products" which don't really make a profit on their own, but enrich the larger, main "product" (NYC as a culture, media, commerce and social center and generally a very crowded place).

It's like McDonald's hamburgers - they don't make a profit off those dollar menu hamburgers but they sure make a killing in franchise fees and happy meal toys (probably made in China with lead paint, I'm sure).

So I guess what I'm saying is that those artists are Hamburgers and maybe you see them as worthless and not a very good investment and they make you fat and give you heart attacks and take a lot of energy and cost to transport, store and prepare, but they sure give you an excuse to get those kids in to buy the crappy Transformers toys or whatever crap they're cross-marketing with whatever crappy Michael Bay movie, which makes your kids pester you to go see said crappy movie which you end up shelling out $30 to see. So in the end it's a pretty good deal for both McDonald's and for Mr. Bay.

See what I mean - the artists make NYC a "cool" place to live so after tons of high school kids in Arkansas see TRL on MTV they come to NYC for college with mom and dad's credit card and end up staying and work for peanuts for MTV for next to nothing because it's so "cool" which leads to more kids coming which leads to higher housing demand which leads to rich landlords and less space to put cars, which results in many, many parking tickets for the city. So it ends up being a pretty good ROI for the city for their $12K.

So, if it helps you stomach it, think of the starving artists as employees of the cultural/commercial venture known as New York City and when you rent your 200sf studio apartment to some college kid for $2800 a month, just think: that's where your taxes went - into you having an easy time renting out your property.

And this isn't even mentioning that $12K a year is really cheap and won't rent you a closet in Dumbo, Williamsburg or any of the above-mentioned neighborhoods which the Artist "Division" of Corporation NYC have done such a good job of promoting.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:22 PM

11:22....u sold me. Good job.

Posted by: guest at August 31, 2007 11:42 PM

How does a $12,000 subsidy help anyone move into a space in DUMBO? Artist, teacher, cop, waitress, illegal immigrant, welfare mother, whatever - $12,000 buys maybe 2 or 3 months' rent or maybe a fraction of the closing costs on a condo. What is this $12,000 supposed to do?

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 7:49 AM

Oh, so you mean that a sculpter could make some cheap beaded earrings too sell on the sidewalk or to a store to support his/her real work.

Or a painter could make some greeting cards or inexpensive mass market artwork to sell to support his/her real work.

Or, an artist could teach to make money to support their real work.

Calvin Klein doesn't ask Ralph Lauren or someone else to subsidize his business. He makes underwear.

McDonalds doesn't ask Burger King or someone else to subsidize them- they figure out how to make money.

U didn't sell me.

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 9:43 AM

I think this quote by Guy Trebay from today's Times pretty much sums it up:
"...it seems obvious that huge sectors of the New York City economy would churn to a halt if all the Project Runway types suddenly stopped migrating here in the belief that the world could be changed by the sort of innovation inherent in how a garment is cut".

This applies just as easily to art as it does to fashion.

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 11:08 AM

Artists won't stop coming of you don't give them money. The dream is not to live in NYC in a subsidized apartment. The dream is to earn a living doing what you love.

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 12:48 PM

9:43 - Yeah, you have some good examples and that's why NYC isn't subisdizing artists' rent in Philadelphia, Boston or DC (among other places).

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 2:18 PM

I'd rather subsidize artists than the i-banker vampires who have been screwing everybody else (and the long-term economy) without even offering a reach-around.

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 2:20 PM

Right. Handouts are never a drain on the economy.

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 3:30 PM

9:43 - then why don't you just move to Houston then, where the only subsidy for the arts was from Enron?

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 6:44 PM

Let me get this straight - you're all getting your silk boxers in a bunch underneath that $4,000 custom suit you wear to the corner office over, at the very most, $600,000????

That's the cost for about a week of that retarded Bat-Signal they did as a "memorial" to the twin towers.

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 6:54 PM

as a reasonably sucessful artist who has had a work (not live) space in DUMBO since 98, I will would like to send out a big heart f--k you to all the smug i-banker types who think artists don't "work". Most artist's work their asses of doing freelance work, teaching, etc. in addition to developing their work. Then they billions in economic value for which they are not paid.

Do you enjoy living in Tribeca, Dumbo, the West Village, the East Village, or Williamsburg? Thank an artist.

That is, unless you would rather see NYC become just like Stamford, Conneticut.

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 8:57 PM

should say "Then they create billions in economic value for which they are not paid.

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 9:00 PM

Reading the comments posted here in reaction to this new law to provide housing subsidies to artists, you realize the hostility and lack of appreciation or respect Americans have toward artists and the work they do for a living, or to survive. I am glad the grants program was introduced to help the City to retain its artistic community. This grant program, if administered properly can assist at best, artists who really need the subsidy to stay in NYC and continue contributing to the city's creativity and cultural life.but at its worse the grant program would fund those elites who are not really artists, much the way the Carnegie Tower and Westbeth have allowed mainstream but questionable people who claimed to be artists to take advantage of these previous artist housing programs.

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 10:38 PM

I agree with 8:57.

I'm also a successful enough artist that I'm able to afford a brownstone in a good part of Brooklyn, so I echo the big "fuck you" above.

And yes, art IS a business, just like anything else.

Does your company have marketing, sales, accounting, production, shipping and advertising departments? So does mine: they all consist of ME.

EVERY industry benefits from some sort of legislation in its' favor: why do you think it's legal for insurance companies to weasel out of paying claims? Because they have a strong lobby which helps them influence legislation in their favor.

And why do you think banks make money? Because of laws in their favor. Anyone who questions this, just go to Zurich and tell me how a country the size of a postage stamp accumulates as much wealth as Switzerland has - from their "favorable" banking laws.

Why are companies as mismanaged as the major US airlines still IN business despite losses even after cutting service, cutting benefits to their employees and cutting even the in-flight meals while other small airlines offer superior service AND make a profit? Because they just keep getting bailed out.

And why is there ANY steel industry left in the US? Because we implement legislation in our favor in the form of immense tarrifs on foreign steel. Never mind that we simply can't compete with them - our steel industry simply is NOT a profitable business but we keep in afloat.

Why do we do this? Because it keeps our economy going, our transportation industry moving, our cars chugging away millions of gallons of oil and generally helps us stay afloat as a country.

So you see, a lot of industries get kickbacks and you're just annoyed because it's not yours. You want to benefit from this? Pick up a paintbrush or a camera or a chisel or an instrument and get a half-ounce of talent.

If you still think this is just a "hobby", next time you fly anywhere or put money into the bank or renew your insurance policy, be sure to ask the pilot, bank manager and insurance agent how they like their "hobbies" too, OK?

Posted by: guest at September 1, 2007 11:01 PM

Way to go, 11:01 and 8:57! You are so right. Unfortunately for many on this site, they seem to think that all artists are people doing some kind of large, strange "art" in a primo Dumbo or Wmsburg loft. I'm sure there are a few, they are certainly not the majority of struggling and creative artists out there.

We enjoy the benefits of art and creativity every day. This same spiteful spirit of jealousy and envy that crops up here regularly is the same, from the same people, I'm sure, no matter if we are speaking of artists' space, rent controlled apts, or people winning a housing lottery. Always complaining "I didn't get any, why should you?"

Most of these people are also doing quite well, anyway, benefitting from the accident of birth that gave them the right backgrounds, blissfull childhoods, middle class or better upbringings, the opportunity to get the right education, the chance to go into lucrative fields. With all of those blessings, and granted, hard work, why deny someone who may not have had those advantages, or someone who chooses not to go that route, opportunities to be able to make their own ways?

Creative people make this society vibrant. Even art that most people may not recognise as such can inspire more traditionalists to go another way, and see things differently. Without art, our daily lives and the things in them would look like the generic aisle in the supermarket - plain and boring. Even those who would deny an artist anything benefit from that art in their lives. From the design on their beer cans to the jingles and animation in their favorite commercials, we all are exposed to, and respond to art everyday.

Let's not begrudge a few people an opportunity to be creative. As people stated above, there is much, much more corporate and governmental support of every other industry in this planet. The arts get less and less everyday. We need the arts in our lives.

Posted by: guest at September 2, 2007 10:13 AM

As I skim down the blog postings, one caught my eye that included the wonderful right-wing logic of 'WHY SHOULD MY TAX DOLLARS PAY FOR ARTISTS, blah blah blah.'

Hey, your tax dollars pay for all sorts of things: A BIG WAR IN IRAQ.

What's a few thousand bucks for some artists when you are paying a much larger proportion of your blessed and precious tax dollars to kill people?

And I'm with this one:

11:15 C'mon- the artists lay the groundwork for the yuppies by setting up camp in an uninhabited areas. Yuppies will not move directly onto piss covered streets filled with junkies and homeless people- with no amenities. Artists will.

Posted by: guest at September 4, 2007 6:50 AM

Your point isn't a point- your tax dollars should go to artists because they go to a big war in Iraq? I think you mean you don't like the war and since your tax dollars are used for that other people's tax dollars should be used for things that they don't like. This is still a flawed position. Have you considered that "right for lifers" don't want their tax dollars going to abortion because they feel as passionately that unnecessary killing is taking place as you feel about the senselessness of Iraq. So the real point is- wouldn't it be nice to choose your causes- to only have your money go to things that you want to spend your hard earned dollars on? Isn't that a great way to really find out what is important to people? If you didn't pay taxes where would you put your money? Would you support artists? Do you give some money to an organization to help house artists? BTW having control over the spending of your own money is called Libertarianism and is pretty darn right-wing.

Posted by: guest at September 4, 2007 12:34 PM

I agree-

"Artists come into communities that are rundown and sleazy and bring a life and vibrancy to that community—they are an economic engine and they shouldn't be overlooked."

But how does giving money to artists to live in Dumbo do that? I don't get it.

Posted by: guest at September 4, 2007 12:50 PM

12:34:
Yes I would support artists because I am tired of Brooklyn becoming like a mall.

This is the cycle:
artists
clubs
galleries, bars
cool cafes
neat boutiques
a starbucks
*people like you move in*
more starbucks, then a commerce bank, etc.
downfall of nabe, crap corporate stores

Posted by: guest at September 4, 2007 9:47 PM

Question: "Artists come into communities that are rundown and sleazy and bring a life and vibrancy to that community—they are an economic engine and they shouldn't be overlooked."

But how does giving money to artists to live in Dumbo do that? I don't get it.

Answer: Geez this is maddening. Are you too lazy to look this history up on the web yourself?

Artists are no longer in Dumbo due to forced evictions. Dumbo was an zoned for industrial use, with artist in residence spaces for decades, and it became a mecca for developers due to a change in zoning and landmark status.

If you give artists some financial assistance a few can remain in Dumbo to keep some semblance of 'flavor' to the place. It's becoming stale by the minute as it is....

Posted by: guest at September 4, 2007 10:58 PM

Hey, 12:34:
It would help us all if you could construct a proper English sentence. Might I suggest Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style" for all your construction and grammar needs? With a little study on your part we might actually understand some of your half-assed Manhattan Institute jibber-jabber.

Posted by: guest at September 4, 2007 11:19 PM

My wife is an artist and has always worked to support herself on her own. Sometimes she's been able to make it through her art sometimes she's had to hold other jobs. If you can't support yourself and make your art then you should give up your art.

Live where you can afford like everyone else. This romanticizing and pitying of artists is bullshit.

Posted by: guest at September 5, 2007 6:19 AM

most of the artist-types i knew in college were whores. art is dead.

Posted by: guest at September 5, 2007 10:38 PM

Hey, 12:34:
It would help us all if you could construct a proper English sentence. Might I suggest Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style" for all your construction and grammar needs? With a little study on your part we might actually understand some of your half-assed Manhattan Institute jibber-jabber.

I am sorry that I was unable to convey my thoughts in a appropriate manner. It seems a bit mean spirited of you to single me out. Do you have an opinion about the topic that is being discussed or just about me? It is funny that an insult, even in this form, hurts. I recognize that I write quickly online and often do not check it. I am sorry. I am sure that I am not as well educated as most the posters. You are right that I should take the time to further educate myself. Please do not think that this is some snide retort. I am sincere. I've wanted to take Italian for some time. Perhaps I'll take a writing course. Thank you.

Posted by: guest at September 6, 2007 8:33 AM

Well said, 6:19. The above "artist" who owns a brownstone is proof that these subsidies should not be given. Clearly, it is possible to earn a decent living being an artist, so no govt. assistance is needed. Pull your own weight, losers.

Posted by: guest at September 6, 2007 10:19 AM

one problem is determining who is legitimately using the subsidy to produce, and who is just leaching off of it. I like having artists in the community, but it's no free ride. If they have to struggle, fine. I know a lot of people who sold out because they were sick of struggling. Many are happy they did so.

Frankly, though, why not just spend the money on public education or something instead of on commissioning another interpretive dance about Eve Ensler's stinking vagina?

Posted by: guest at September 6, 2007 10:25 PM

Y'all some of tha most diabolical haterz. Hate, hate , hate, hate!

Posted by: guest at September 6, 2007 11:58 PM