The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist. So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL.

The only person I know getting this money was already semi-retired after selling their house in London and retiring to the Irish countryside, and basically just noodles around on the guitar now and then.

▲

s_dev 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

>The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist.

Correct, the programme is FOR artists. How could this possibly work otherwise? By somebody stating they intend to become an talented artist?

How else would you gauge merit if not through their portfolio of prior work?

▲

krisoft an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> The frustrating thing about this program is that it is not possible to avail of this unless you are ALREADY an artist.

Frankly we don’t know the selection criteria for the program this year. It will be only released in April.

But we know the selection criteria for the pilot program, and for that this was not true.

> So if you gave up art because you had bills and kids and needed to support yourself or a family, you're SOL.

Again we don’t know the full program’s eligibility criteria yet. Under the pilot program there were two separate streams. Those who were recently trained, and those who were “practicing artist”.

Your hypothetical “artist who gave up art” might fall into the “recently trained” stream and thus be eligible.

Or if they gave up on art a long ago (more than 5 years), there are ways they can get back to it. They can start practicing their art on the side again, produce a portfolio of work and thus become eligible again. They don’t need to be full time artist for this.

> The only person I know getting this money

In the pilot program they randomly selected 2000 participants from those who where eligible. So to get the money in the pilot program you both needed to be eligible, have applied for it, and be lucky enough in the lottery.

Because of this lottery whoever is getting it today is not representative of who is all eligible for it.

▲

Azrael3000 an hour ago | parent [-]

Additionally i would argue that in every such programm there will be people that abuse the system. Just because gp knows one such person, does not mean that everybody will be doing that.

The article also mentions that overall the program had a positive impact.

▲

Griffinsauce an hour ago | parent [-]

There is generally a heavy bias to focusing on abuse instead of outcomes. Who cares that there are some false positives if there is a net benefit, it's just noise.

	▲	bobim 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Then make it an universal income, because deep down everyone is an artist waiting to be revealed.