Money for Nothing: Should Ireland Pay Their Artists?

A philosophical debate between Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre.

Source: Pexels/cottonbro studio

In February 2026, Ireland’s 3-year trial for the Basic Income for Artists (BIA) scheme ends, with plans to create a permanent version of the program. The trial provided 2000 artists with 325 euros weekly, thus ensuring an income of 1500 euros monthly. The effects of the pilot scheme were significant, producing socio-economic benefits amounting to 100 million euros as of September 2025, by allowing artists to focus on improving their craft rather than pursuing it for economic reasons. While the social benefits of this scheme are undeniable and the effects on the artists are clear, what are the effects of this on the artwork itself? Put differently, how is the artist’s position in society affected by the provision of basic income, and what ramifications does it have on the artwork?

Let us analyze the philosophical implications from two perspectives: through the lens of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. Both 20th century French philosophers have had a significant impact on the way art is perceived in terms of the morals it conveys. Moreover, they were both awarded a Nobel Prize in Literature for their philosophical writings, through which they took a stance on the power struggles happening at the time. The two writers find themselves in a political disagreement: Camus supported liberal democratic values, in contrast with Sartre’s fondness of existential Marxism. The core of this debate thus has strong political implications.

That being said, how does this measure stand in the face of Camus and Sartre? What would each of them have to say about the implications of guaranteed income for artists upon the fundamental existence of the artists? How does “free money” change art and our society at large? Ultimately, the question is: should artists suffer for their craft, or simply create comfortably? Should Ireland pay their artist?

First off, Albert Camus supports the idea that artists have a social responsibility to express their view by reflecting selective parts of the world around them in their creation. They are meant to be carried away by the ideas floating around them, creating art that is subjective enough to entice the observer but general enough to be enjoyed by many. This implies that artists reflect the world as they see it, indirectly describing their social circumstances and the phenomena that flows around and through them. He affirms that the “greatness of art lies in the perpetual tension between beauty and pain”, referring to the beauty of the abstract and the pain of the limited human condition of the creator. Economic struggles could therefore be perceived as part of  the limits imposed onto the artist by their existence. The greater the struggle is, the more striking the contrast between the pain and the beauty of one’s art, arguably the greater the art.  In this context, the basic income scheme reduces artists’ struggles, narrowing the gap between beauty and pain, thus decreasing the quality of their art.

On the other hand, Jean-Paul Sartre finds the core beauty of art in the freedom it expresses. The freedom he refers to is that of the artist to create and the observer to interact with the artwork. Moreover, Sartre makes the point that art is a collaboration, requiring the reader’s engagement for it to deliver its message. When either side is constrained by the harsh circumstances of life, they often deny themself of luxuries. One could argue that people can neither create nor enjoy art when pressured by their debts, responsibilities and sorrow, thus they withdraw from the interaction required for art to flourish. From this perspective, the more freedom there is, the higher the quality of the art. This freedom must be equally shared between the artist and the observer. Basic income fits into this picture by freeing the artists from the burden of providing for themselves, and conforms to the ideas of freedom through material equality, openly depicted in Sartre’s writings on existential Marxism.

Clearly, the two writers present opposing views about the role of freedom in the process of creation. The following analysis extends from their political beliefs. Camus appreciates art through the contrast it displays. This idea is well reflected in his support of a liberal democracy, where the contrast is between the leading majority and the minoritarian opposition. Thus, while artistically he would not favor this program, politically Camus would comply with the decision of a democratic majority in its favor. Respectively, since Sartre believes in liberation through material equality, it would stand to argue that he would generally approve of this program only if basic income was provided equally for the art creators and consumers. While this debate is indeed about art, it reveals the values and beliefs that form the roots of our society and steer the wheel of our political processes.

Now that we have explored the mental palaces built by the two writers, and how the BIA scheme fits in their views, it is time to answer the question: should Ireland pay their artists? The answer depends on the values we share as a society. If we choose to romanticize suffering, we will perpetuate it by answering a firm “No” to the question above. However, if we choose to see freedom itself as an art, we must support it in every way possible.