3 ms·

This article is not so much about artists failing in their careers, financially or otherwise. It seems to be more about failing in more of a "project failed to

This article is not so much about artists failing in their careers, financially or otherwise. It seems to be more about failing in more of a "project failed to come to fruition" sense. It's claiming that patrons and other financial supporters are being too conservative, asking for too much certainty about the finished product and not being tolerant enough of projects that fail to produce or may fail to produce. This in turn is making artists & art too conservative, and not exploring enough risky ideas. The perspective for the normative (being too conservative; shouldn't chastize) appears to "for the sake of art" rather than the "for society/economy/artist wellbeing" I think you're responding from. A tech startup analogy is pretty straightforward. If investors are too risk averse (eg avoiding startups with execution risk), the odds of big wins go down. Art, like startups is risky. Low failure rates can be a bad sign, and lower overall "returns."

0815test 7y ago
> It's claiming that patrons and other financial supporters are being too conservative, asking for too much certainty about the finished product There's a reason for this, of course - most customers don't want to incur hard-to-assess risk. Creators could deal with this by self-insuring and offering some sort of money-back guarantee, but of course this comes with additional challenges-- including having to raise a larger amount in the first place to offset the possibility of failure, which still makes for sharply-lower "tolerance" of failure-prone projects! In general, it could even be that just letting the chips fall where they may is the least bad approach, for all its clear drawbacks.