Unless you go for UBI, art subsidies will be finite. You need a measure to decide who gets subsidized and who doesn't. We're not talking about people doing art as a hobby after all, but about the government paying people to make art.

I'm not saying artists should optimize for money but financial sustainability. It seems like a good target because it indicates popularity and means you need less subsidies. You don't need to make _all_ the money or even break even, but if nobody is interested in paying you, the odds are good that you're not enriching many peoples lives.

financial stability is a different word for money.

no one is saying the government needs to specifically pay for art, the original discussion was about how to determine the worth of art. You think money is the right proxy, the other poster thinks fulfillment is the right proxy.

yes the other poster was hinting at UBI and using artists as a proxy for people being able to work on what they find interesting. you strawmanned that into an argument that governments are being asked to specifically pay for art.

The first post - which I responded to - is _explicitly_ about the government paying people to do art:

> Games in this day and age ideally need generous government subsidy to be successful.

> something like an artist's living wage provided by the government is a necessity to produce good independent video games

> but the funding really needs to come from an entity that is largely divorced from the [financial] "success" of the game.