2 ms·
> People can pay them to make their work, that's historically how things were done. So who's going to pay them? Their employer? That raises two problems: 1) Cr
by adwn 6y ago
> People can pay them to make their work, that's historically how things were done.
So who's going to pay them? Their employer? That raises two problems: 1) Creators can't be independent and self-employed anymore, and 2) how is their employer going to make enough money?
A rich patron? That's hardly a better system.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> So who's going to pay them? Their employer? Whoever wants artwork, obviously. > 1) Creators can't be independent and self-employed anymore, Actually, there are plenty of independent creators who are either self-employed or work at a job. > 2) how is their employer going to make enough money? Presumably the reason they are an employer is their ability to run a successful enterprise. > A rich patron? That's hardly a better system. Why not?
- jeegsy 6y ago> A rich patron? That's hardly a better system. Many great works of art have come to us via this system. In our time, isnt that what Patreon is?