What can be achieved when we radically rethink the value of artists and their place in our society? That question sits at the heart of the debate over the Basic Income for Artists (BIA), a policy that proposes regular, unconditional payments to artists to give them lasting financial security.
For centuries, the myth of the ‘starving artist’ has governed our value of creativity. Whether Van Gogh’s passionate personal struggles or the rags-to-riches stories behind the ‘Hollywood’ waiter, this long-standing cultural fascination with artistic poverty equates suffering with authenticity.
It claims that ‘true’ creatives must face financial or emotional adversity to prove their worth. In reality, the creative sector in the UK contributed £146 billion to the economy in 2024, representing 5 per cent of the national GDP. This demonstrates a tangible value that, in theory, should speak for itself.
So why is artistic purity so often tied to financial precarity? The trope of the starving artist produces a damaging self-perpetrating narrative that allows governments and intuitions to systematically under-pay and defund the arts. By casting artists as people who forgo financial security in favour of indulgent careers, this stereotype absolves the responsibility of those in power to grant artists with the same protections afforded to other workers.
The consequences are visible. Equity reports that local government arts funding in the UK has fallen by 55 per cent since 2010. This has eroded an already vulnerable sector, increasing barriers to entry for those without family wealth and normalising the expectation of free labour in exchange for ‘exposure’ as full-time positions become more limited.
BIA offers a modest but meaningful response by tackling in-work poverty directly, and it has moved from the fringes of economic theory to a reality…for some. Ireland’s pilot scheme provided 2000 artists with a weekly stipend of €325 (£274) for over three years. Following its success, it is being made into a permanent policy — the first of its kind in Europe.
The fear that ‘free money’ breeds idleness was not borne out in Ireland. Participants reported spending around 11 more hours a week on their creative practice alongside increased wellbeing and financial return. Rather than replacing work, this scheme allows artists a release from the drudgery of the ‘side job’ so they can focus on their real job: making art.
Economically, the scheme also held up. An independent evaluation by Alma Economics found a return of €1.39 (£1.17) for every €1 (84p) of public investment. Once tax revenue and savings on social welfare were counted, the net cost of the pilot fell from €105 (£88.55) million to under €72(£60.72) million.
Scotland may soon test whether the starving artist is inevitable. In its first Programme for Government since re-election, the SNP has committed to delivering its own BIA pilot scheme by 2031, alongside a pledge of an additional £100m annually for culture. But with no detailed proposals yet on the table, a harder question follows: will long-standing cultural myths that deprioritise the arts limit the scheme from panning out? In England and Wales, despite the mounting evidence of the BIA’s social benefit, it appears the policy is not even on their radar let alone integrated into their strategic agendas.
While the cultural sector continues to be undervalued, under-appreciated and underpaid, the BIA represents a step in the right direction. Its immediate positive impact for the sector and the economy is firm but a BIA cannot be the be-all and end-all. It is one cog in a wider artistic revolution needed to revive the arts.
Photo by Khara Woods on Unsplash
