Roots Of Ireland’s Basic Income For Artists Was 1981

by:

Joe Patti

In the last couple weeks there have been articles about Ireland making their basic income for artists program permanent. What that means is that around 2000 artists will be randomly chosen by lottery to receive 325 euros (~$383 USD) a week for three years. Then another 2000 artists will be chosen. This mirrors the trial phase of the program which ran from 2022-2025 where 2000 artists out of 8000 applicants were chosen.

A few days later another article took a more in depth look at the program. That article noted that while a lot of those in the trial program saw an improvement in quality of life, a lot of artists were obviously left out. The fact the new program is limited to 2000 people and cycles every three years means a lot of other people will be left out.

That said, Ireland is believed to be the only country to have made a basic income program for artists permanent. Now there are movements to try to do the same for other industries such as fishing, farming and weather based tourist attractions.

What I really found interesting was the recounting of the lengthy process that lead to the establishment of the guaranteed basic income program. Apparently, Ireland’s Greens Party had been interested in the concept back in 1981. Energy didn’t really coalesce around creating a program until the sense of desperation that existed during Covid shutdowns.

Then Minister for Arts Catherine Martin created the trail program. People interviewed for the piece credit Martin with investing the time and energy to make it a reality and then moving it toward becoming a permanent feature.

Basic income for artists was the first. “And it landed at a time when I think government was very open to thinking outside the box.”

It coincided with a “hearts and minds” campaign undertaken by the NCFA about the importance of the arts and a grassroots campaign in every county. There was also a higher than usual appreciation for the arts due to the successive lockdowns. “Then it was ‘over to you, minister’,” says Dorgan. “Catherine Martin spent every single cent of her political clout getting it through … It was her hill. And I think she was prepared to die on that hill.”

Living in a world where we can access information and order things so quickly it is easy to forget that generating energy and interest around an idea in order to bring large scale change sometimes takes decades. A lot of the basic work has to be done in order to take advantage of a moment of openness that occurred in Ireland during Covid.

It will be interesting to see if Ireland is able to expand the program to a broader range of artists and industries.

As a caveat to all this, I want to link back to a post I did in October 2025 on research that found basic income programs tend to emphasize a narrow set of positive outcomes and downplay significant areas of participants lives which did not improve. In many respects that may be an indication that the programs need to be designed to include a range of resources and support.

What Will We Do? The Paintings Aren’t Working!

by:

Joe Patti

Via Artsjournal.com is a piece on The Critic addressing the trend in thinking art has curative abilities. I have long written about the problem with measuring the value of art in prescriptive terms.

While the piece focuses on The Tate in the UK, the points are applicable world wide.

Writes Ella Nixon in “It’s not the Tate’s job to heal you”:

These cultural institutions are transforming curatorial practice in order to combat the spread of anxiety and depression — particularly amongst the young. Taxpayer value is proven through demonstrable worth. Curators are incentivised to diagnose and treat societal ailments through exhibition practices as a means of demonstrating their social utility and thereby justifying their public funding, at the expense of art’s true potential to cultivate society.

But as Goodhart’s Law states, when the measure becomes the goal, the measure ceases to have any value.

Nixon cites examples of when the art created has had to take a backseat to the goals of addressing inequity, social issues, and environmental concerns.

One manifestation of the medicalisation of artistic value is the latest Turner Prize winner. Commentators — including chair of the jury and director of Tate Britain, Alex Farquharson — focused excessively on the fact that Nnena Kalu was the first learning-disabled artist to win the prize, rather than on discussing the artistic qualities of her work.

Not only are curators expected to address complex manifestations of medical disabilities, but also to inextricably link care and climate change. One wall text at Tate Britain declares, “We continue to struggle with the planet-wide impact of the climate emergency.”

Certainly artists intentionally address issues which are meaningful to them in their creations. But if the didactic messaging is the primary recognized value and the artistic expression is expected to take a secondary or tertiary role, wouldn’t it be better to just commission a PSA?

In the same way, viewing and using art in a prescriptive manner intended to solve some ill makes the artistic value and creativity invested in it subservient at best and in danger of being regarded alongside a tablespoon full of cod liver oil at worst.

Elements of Your Business Model That Can Derail Change

by:

Joe Patti

Ruth Hartt made an insightful post on LinkedIn a few weeks ago which caught my attention. She also mirrored it on her own website. She talked about how boards and staffs of arts organizations will recognize that the digital age has lead to a change in business models across dozens of industries–except for arts and culture.

We have watched film developing kiosks in shopping center parking lots have disappeared and how Blockbuster stores were replaced by Netflix DVD mailing service and then streaming. But when it comes to arts and culture organizations, the solutions to challenges are to cut expenses, do more marketing and discount tickets.

This week she went more in depth about how staffs can start to shift the framing of the business model in partnership with their boards.

Ruth provides a step by analysis of the business model most arts and cultural organizations follow and how the different elements can derail efforts to change. I really appreciate how she broke the issues down in this manner because it provided structure and clarity to things I had already been thinking about.

She sums up part of the overarching viewpoint in need of change:

Your value proposition to the public is simple: “You should buy tickets because we make excellent art.”

But excellent art isn’t what most people need right now. What they actually need are the outcomes that art provides. That doesn’t mean excellence doesn’t matter. It means excellence alone is no longer a viable value proposition.

When the digital revolution shifted consumer priorities—when people started seeking wellness, connection, stress relief, community—this value proposition (and thus the entire model) became a liability.

[…]

The model collapses under its own weight because it’s built to protect something—artistic excellence—instead of serving the people you’re trying to reach.

Back in August I came across a video by the Frick Collection in partnership with Steve Martin which serves as a good example of an audience focus. In my blog post, I called out the following language from the beginning of the video:

Consider what you or I might be drawn to…maybe it is a gilded beard, or a velvet sleeve, a trend setter, a love triangle, a mysterious exchange…Maybe what you see reminds you of a friend or a place you’ve been, or a book you’ve read, or a show you’ve binged.

Maybe it jogs a memory or fills you with a sense of delight, desire, power, wonder, bemusement, or calm.

Maybe you need a moment to sit and think and escape. Somewhere peaceful. Somewhere with a view….this is what the Frick collection is for. For slowing down, following your eye, and getting closer to objects of beauty and awe…”

Stimulating MN Arts Impacted By ICE

by:

Joe Patti

Last week, Springboard for the Arts, based in St. Paul, MN posted on LinkedIn about different funds they and others had created and contributed to in order to mitigate the impact of federal immigration enforcement presence in Minnesota.

While some of the funds are intended to provide relief to artists and organizations who had lost sales and other revenue generation opportunities, funding was also available for reinvestment in creative businesses and to cultivate social cohesion in neighborhoods and communities.

Artists Respond: Safety in Neighbors: We’re funding artists to create small, neighborhood-scale projects that make community care intentional and accessible. How would you like to respond to this moment with your community? Share your project idea with us. Applications are open on a rolling basis.

These are the type of programs Springboard seems to excel at. I have mentioned in other posts that we drew some inspiration from their Irrigate initiative to create art installations and experiences around the street construction in our downtown.

The description of this program on their website defines neighborhood-scale a little more granularly.

Artists Respond: Safety in Neighbors activates the local: neighbors, block clubs, apartment buildings, whisper networks, and local businesses, and asks artists to make it easier for neighbors to find resources, solidarity, and each other. Our goal is to support at least 50 projects in Minnesota. Applications will remain open on a rolling basis, learn more and apply to participate.

123795 Next