is the starving artist a systemic choice? exploring guaranteed income.

dav adé
Jan 13
3 min read

Updated: Jan 15

this conversation feels timely. we just sat down with jenneen marie beattie—an artist who isn't afraid to poke at the structural ribs of the creative industry. one of the most polarizing threads we pulled from our talk was the concept of a guaranteed income for artists.

is it a lifeline for culture, or a bureaucratic band-aid? we’re looking at both sides.

tldr;

guaranteed income for artists—often called basic income for the arts (bia)—is a model where creators receive a set monthly stipend with no strings attached. proponents say it buys back the time stolen by "survival jobs," while critics worry about government dependency and the high cost to taxpayers. ireland is currently the world's primary case study.

the case for: buying back time

the most obvious argument is simple: art takes time, and time in a capitalist framework is expensive. for most, the "starving artist" trope isn't a romantic choice; it’s a systemic failure.

reduced precarity: a steady floor allows artists to skip the 40-hour retail week and spend those hours in the studio. in ireland's pilot, recipients spent an average of 11 more hours per week on their craft than those without the stipend.
risk-taking: when you aren't worried about rent, you can make "difficult" or non-commercial work. you can fail. and failure is where the best breakthroughs live.
mental health: financial anxiety is a known creativity killer. data from current programs shows a significant drop in depression and anxiety among supported artists.

the case against: the "merit" and "market" problem

opponents usually lean into the economic and philosophical risks of government funded creativity.

the "lottery" of fairness: ireland’s program chose recipients via a random lottery. critics argue this is arbitrary—should a hobbyist get the same check as a career professional? and if you do judge by merit, who gets to be the gatekeeper of "good" art?
market insulation: some argue that the "friction" of the market, while harsh, keeps art relevant to the public. there is a fear that guaranteed income could create a class of "state-supported" artists who make work that is intellectually isolated or, worse, obedient to the hand that feeds them.
the taxpayer burden: critics point out that the money has to come from somewhere. in times of inflation and housing crises, some argue these funds should be universal or directed toward essential infrastructure rather than a specific sector.

the irish experiment

in 2022, ireland launched a three-year pilot giving 2,000 artists €325 a week. the results have been so impactful that the government recently confirmed the program will become permanent starting in 2026.

research shows that for every €1 the government invested, the public saw a return of €1.39 in socio-economic value. artists weren't just "lounging"; they were producing more work, volunteering in their communities, and spending more money at local businesses for supplies and studio space.

why this matters for us

at BLANK, we care about the "truth" of the artist. if that truth is being silenced by the need to work three jobs just to afford a canvas, then the culture at large is poorer for it. whether a government-sponsored check is the answer or just a temporary fix remains the big question.