MBE said:
Of course CoD doesn't need taxpayer funding. It does just fine on it's own in the marketplace. The purpose of the NEA is to give taxpayer money to artists and videogames that nobody wants, much less would voluntarily fund with their own money. Considering the kind of profane filth/art that the NEA does support, it is reasonable to imagine that the kind of videogames they would produce would be like the art they finance, e.g., the game mechanic of putting a Crucifix in a jar of urine.
On the plus side, the developers of Duke Nukem Forever can declare their game as "art" and get taxpayer money to fund their operation. That way, they don't have to worry about making a profit in the marketplace. They'll have piles of taxpayer cash to lean on.
Another advantage to giving failed videogamers taxpayer money is it takes them off the unemployment rolls. It's still welfare state spending, but Obama can claim he has reduced unemployment by reclassifying a large segment of unemployed as artists and transferred them from Dept of Labor to the NEA.
Maybe, instead of taking money from taxpayers who worked hard for that money, instead of making crappy videogames that nobody but a government bureaucrat would spend money on, they could watch the "Extra Credits" video series. If they watch the "Graphics vs. Aesthetics" episode, they could make art that people would actually want to buy in the marketplace.
You asked to be proven wrong. Well:
First, you seem to believe that commercial projects can get funding though the NEA ("On the plus side, the developers of Duke Nukem Forever can declare their game as "art" and get taxpayer money to fund their operation."). You are wrong. These projects cannot be commercial and cannot be sold on the marketplace; it's one of the stipulations for the grant. The makers of Duke Nukem, if they received the grant, would then be unable to sell it (hell of a business model you've got there--get a few thousand dollar grant on a multi-million dollar game that you then can't make any money off of. Very clever.).
Second, you think commercial enterprises can receive this funding. You are wrong. it's impossible for commercial enterprises to apply for the grant. NEA grants are only given to registered non-profits.
Third, you claim that "The purpose of the NEA is to give taxpayer money to artists and videogames that nobody wants". You are wrong. Grants given by the NEA go to non-profit organizations that, clearly, want this project completed. The money is given to them so that they can then hire the artist to complete the project.
Fourth, you seem to think that the grants function as some sort of alternative welfare. You are wrong. The grants are given to organizations to hire artists (not to the artists themselves) because the organizations have something they want done but could not fully afford on their own (for example, long-term projects that, in the past few years, require extra funding for a project to make up for an unexpected lack of donations because of the economy's problems, and which would otherwise be left as a half-finished waste of private donations).
Fifth, you seem to be under the amusing misunderstanding that the NEA funds projects that did poorly in the marketplace and require reimbursement (especially that second post of yours). I hope by now you realize you are wrong. Grants are not given for commercial projects. Grants are not given to commercial enterprises. Grants are not given for already finished projects (you apply to grants to receive funding to start a project. And by the way, all of those grants have clear goals and requirements that the applicants must fulfill in order to receive funding).
Sixth, you state that NEA will only be funding "crappy videogames that nobody but a government bureaucrat would spend money on,". This is wrong. NEA grants are not sole donations--they match (key word here), yes, match the funds donated by other people to the organization to complete the project. The project can only receive funds if people outside the NEA are willing to spend money on it.
Seventh, you state that some nebulous "they" should "make art that people would actually want to buy in the marketplace," again with you labouring under the misapprehension of the goals of the NEA (that it's supposed to support works that failed on the makertplace). You are wrong. NEA supports works that are never intended for the marketplace, but instead serve the public good as a project needed by a non-profit organization (for example, making a video game that will help educate children at a local museum). Working to please the marketplace is the opposite of the NEA's goals, as well it should be. The NEA funding allows public access to creating and experience art and creates a greater diversity of art (since it allows art to be made for goals other than making money). If you are concerned about the development of video games, this can be particularly useful (besides acting as a handy stamp of approval for video games) because it can allow greater innovation in the art form (as opposed to the commercial model, in which playing it safe and doing the same thing over and over is practically a requirement).
Honestly, if you'd spent 30 seconds on Google or, heck, actually reading this forum, you would already know this.
