Art in a Socialist society

What would be the status of art in a socialist society? By that I mean, what would become of art like music or movies? A single person with their own vision wouldn't be able to "fund" their own projects. I'm well aware that socialist nations have produced music and films, but I can see no legitimate reason why the resources of a nation should be wasted on one person with their own vision.

I ask this become I am an aspiring filmmaker and I know I need money to make a film (sure I can get a camera and a bunch of people and do something cheap, but I'd like a better aesthetic), and the only way I'm gonna get that money is through investors (who most likely will be of the bourgeoisie class), capitalist corporations, government grant (through a independent production), or saving up my money for decades. The ability to make movies today is hard enough, but in a socialist or communist system I doubt I'd ever be able to make a feature film and this is a problem as I consider myself socialistic.

I am not a psychic but I think that there would still be bigger films: with time consuming special effects and what not. Entertainment and creativity are not things that should or would be stunted.

That said, I doubt that the organization of the industry would remain close to how it is now. Likely, the entire crew would have a say in how the movie was filmed since they would be putting labor into it. As for sticking to the author's script, that could be agreed upon prior to the start of the undertaking.

Have you been in a film club or theater club in which everyone has a say to in the production? I would imagine that it would be similar to that on a larger scale.

I suppose that I'm not seeing the dilemma that you are.

Cheers

Solaris, Stalker and Mirror by Andrei Tarkovsky are some of the greatest masterpieces in cinematic history and were made during the 70s in the Soviet Union.

Funding would come from either from government or independently from the contributions of other interested citizens, depending on the nature of the socialist society.

In a socialist market economy, the process of producing a film would be analogous to how it's currently conducted—with the exception that venture capitalists would cease to exist to provide independent filmmakers with funds (at their usual exorbitant interest rates) and film studios would be transformed into self-managed, cooperative enterprises.

With respect to how films would be produced within the context of a democratically planned economy, I have given the subject some thought and came up with the following formula. The country would vote on an annual budget which would include a share for matters of entertainment. A number of collectives would thereafter be established across the country with the mandate to produce visual media; these firms would consist of various writers and directors, as well as a film or television crew. Each year they would release a number of films and/or television programs for the public. If a viewer wasn't satisfied with the material released by a specific visual arts collective that year, they could register a complaint with the representatives of their consumer council, and, if enough complaints were received, the visual arts collective would lose its license to produce and the individuals involved would have to apply for work elsewhere—whether in another visual arts collective or some other field. Voilà! (Simple and elegant, is it not?)

This is obviously a very general outline, but If anyone is interested in discussing the minutiae of how this model could function, I can further elaborate.

I'm just going to remark upon how funny it is that so many people are under the impression that art will be snuffed out in a socialist society... Obviously this guest is a little more open minded, but the general public honestly thinks art won't exist in such a society, which is completely ridiculous.