I agree that this is a difficult choice given your stand on subsidy - one I broadly agree with. However, from the perspective of the guys looking for work it looks rather different. I think in the circumstances I would put aside how they got to 'now' and act as if recruiting from scratch.

Is that any different than me getting a scholarship? Government handouts are one thing. Getting an education in any way possible is another.

I think you are giving yourself a tummy ache over nothing. How their job training program was financed should be of no concern. If these young men had personally answered your ad you might never know how they got to "here". I suppose it would come up somewhere along the line, but would it really matter by then?

Dave, your pride in being able to support yourself is justifiable, but I think you are off with the tea-party while moralising about "hand outs" of tax payers money. To be worried that other people might have accepted government assistance for "something as trivial as training to be a worker in an obsolete craft" is a little cute. You yourself attach huge significance to working in an obsolete craft, why should the community, through the agency of government, not have a similar perspective? Do you not accept that many of your customers are also motivated by a desire to "preserve tradition"?

I admire you for seeking to make your own way in the world unassisted, but in reality this is an illusion, like the child who tells a parent "I can do it myself". If your ethics preclude the notion of government patronage you will need to be scrupulously honest in examining your own books before you start examining others. For instance, you could survey your customers and turn down any subscription funds that fail an ethics test. I suggest you could target wealthy individuals who accrue money by avoiding paying their fair share of tax.

If you start to question all the economic inputs to your endeavor you will soon see that you do indeed benefit from the largess of government and any wealth you may enjoy is not created entirely by you. And this is entirely reasonable.

Go easy on the recruits Dave.

BTW - no grants or subsidies here either, but I did get a free education.

Tom, thanks for taking the trouble to make an extensive reply. I certainly don't see myself as a tea-partier, and am personally repulsed by what those people are doing/saying. And I'm not at all an opponent of government per se. I think the place I live has got the balance between 'individual rights/responsibilities' and 'social rights/responsibilities' worked out pretty well, certainly far better than our friends over in the good ol' US of A, and am very happy to have our government running such things as our national medical insurance scheme, etc.

I think the position that I am perhaps trying to stumble towards is that I see the proper function of government as 1) providing national security (to the extent that this is practical/possible), 2) maintenance of the general social contract (laws, enforcement, etc.), and 3) provision of the basic infrastructures, such things as roads, land management, education, fire protection, medical insurance, etc. etc.). With all these systems in place, the people of the land are then free to build, trade, etc. etc. as they decide on their own. (All this is of course a description of an 'ideal' situation. The real life is of course going to be messier and more blurred.)

What I don't see as a proper function for any government is 'social engineering' - trying to make people do things that wouldn't normally take place. I have no right at all to reach into my neighbour's pocket and scoop out some of his money, justifying it because 'the work I'm doing needs to be supported.' If my work really is of value to society, then society (in the shape of X number of its individuals) will demonstrate that by using my products ... by buying prints (exchanging their labour for mine, via the convenient intermediary of money). If that doesn't happen, case closed, game over, and I have to try some other way to support myself.

Go easy on the recruits Dave

Oh of course I'll say nothing of this to them. I'm not intending to stand on a soapbox here - simply I was quietly expressing some of my own thoughts on these (complex and contradictory) issues. If one of these guys ends up working here satisfactorily, then maybe one evening sometime in the future, during one of our evening get-togethers in the Mokuhankan building Library, this topic can form the basis for a good lively discussion! :-)

I kind of agree with you on the social engineering angle, but at the same time I am glad that some governments have bought in ideas that were first seen as progressive, but later accepted as common sense. Wearing seatbelts for instance, or conserving endangered species. There is scope for forward thinking, the market is not always up to speed.

I think it is good that your customers know that they are taking direct action in the survival of the traditional woodblock print. I just question whether you should continue to reject the idea of support of "art" from government. There is an easy case to make that a huge amount of valuable culture is maintained and created under the guidance of government. For instance, in Australia the initiative of setting up art centres in remote Aboriginal communities has lead to the creation of an industry that now accounts for 70% of all art sold in Australia. Art that is now highly valued on a global scale. This government action has generated wealth and it has helped to protect a cultural heritage that was previously deemed worthless by the market.

... ideas that were first seen as progressive, but later accepted as common sense. Wearing seatbelts for instance

Certainly can't argue with examples like this! Perhaps I'm trying to draw a line where there really is no clear division between 'OK' and 'No way!' ... These are very complex issues, and I suppose I'm basically just trying to keep my activites as 'honest' as possible ...

I received an interesting email this evening, with information relevant to my comments about 'subsidies' in the above post. With the permission of the sender, I'll quote from it here:

As you know, I have been working with Numabe-san at the Yoshida Studio for about 2 1/2 years now. In writing you I would just like to dispel some misperceptions that you may have gained through your talks with Mr. Numabe, about certain subsidies being given to students in the studio.

The subsidies you mention cover the teachers which Mr. Numabe brings into the studio twice a month: a printer, and a carver. Or, rather, various printers and carvers. These respective sessions occur on Saturday afternoons, and students also from Asaka-san's workshops attend. Anyone, actually, who wishes to attend may do so. As you know, that has always been the policy of the Yoshida Studio. So, in this sense, any student who attends these Saturday workshops are receiving a 'subsidized' education. The last Saturday for this term will be March 24th. I guess that is when the money for this term runs out. I have not heard whether this will continue, or not.

As of this moment, however, neither of these two students are receiving any 'subsidy' from the government, and the only thing that is paid for is that teaching just mentioned, and the use of materials and tools (baren, chisels, paper).

I do not know to what extent, if any, they will be receiving stipends as a direct support from the government in the future.

Perhaps this information may serve you to make a decision you can rest more easily with.