The pandemic years tilted the stage in ways that the everyman can barely perceive, particularly in the power relationship between the Irish state and the media. A slew of emergency subsidies and support schemes quietly rewired incentives and normalised state dependency softening already waning adversarial instincts.
What was framed as crisis management in 2020 now functions, in practice, as a long-term rebalancing of social leverage in 2026.
The planned Basic Income for the Arts, now heading for Cabinet, threatens to reproduce the same dynamic in the cultural sphere. Promising a flat €325 weekly payment to budding Picassos and underemployed NCAD graduates alike, the scheme is less an act of neutral generosity than a calculated exercise in state patronage.
Its political purpose is transparent: to take the sting out of an often restive artistic class by converting their inherent precarity into managed dependence. Just like the push for media subsidies Fianna Fáil, in particular, appears keenly aware of the stabilising effects of a quiet stipend.
The idea has been circulating since lockdown, propelled by the sudden poverty many artists experienced when public commissions dried up and venues were shuttered. That shock was real. But so too was the lesson learned by the government: cultural labour, once financially exposed, is highly responsive to relief that arrives framed as benevolence rather than control.
This arrives as the arts world stares down a genuine fiscal cliff. AI-generated content threatens to undercut illustration, design, writing, and even music at scale.
It is worth recalling that Irish arts, media, and literary life already operates as a closed fiscal ecosystem. Access is limited, gatekept, and disproportionately dominated by left-leaning ideological cliques who understand the informal rules of the system.
A universalised basic income does not disrupt this ecosystem; it entrenches it, extending state patronage downward while leaving cultural authority untouched.
The state no longer needs to censor, threaten, or even persuade. It subsidises. It cushions. It removes friction. In doing so, it reshapes behaviour without ever issuing a command.
Artists and journalists are always first in line for this treatment because they sit at a peculiar junction of visibility and precarity. They shape narratives yet they tend to live economically exposed lives. That combination makes them uniquely sensitive to stabilising interventions.
Once classified, funded, and monitored, they can be managed like any other interest group.
The pandemic accelerated this logic across society, the ruling regime was the testing ground. What is now being proposed by Minister O’Donovan for the arts is simply the peacetime version of an emergency instrument that has already proved its worth.
Zoom out, and the picture becomes starker. Ireland, like most advanced societies, is entering a period where AI-driven productivity shocks will collide with a social model built on credentialism, and middle-class cultural work.
Whole categories of “creative” output are being devalued at machine speed. Markets will not absorb this shock gently. They will be brutal, uneven, and politically destabilising.
The state’s response is not to rethink what creativity is for, or how cultural value is generated, but to freeze the existing hierarchy in place. Basic incomes, sectoral supports, and cultural stipends act as shock absorbers for the most articulate and networked groups first.
There are other futures for the art world, but they require choices the state seems unwilling to make. One path would accept creative destruction: fewer artists by profession, but greater independence, sharper antagonism, and a re-grounding of art in voluntary patronage, community support, and genuine risk.
Another would decentralise cultural funding radically, stripping gatekeepers of curatorial power and letting audiences, not panels, decide value. A third would reconnect art to craft, place, and material reality, more embedded cultural work rooted in real social needs.
Each of these futures carries instability. Each weakens the Irish state’s capacity to manage the narrative.
AI is not just rewiring labour markets; it is forcing a reckoning with what work, creativity, and meaning actually are. Ireland can meet that reckoning honestly, allowing disorder and renewal to run their course, or it can manage decline through stipends and silence. The Basic Income for the Arts signals, fairly clearly, which instinct currently prevails.
Share this: