9 ms·
To a close approximation, everyone wants to make art, but very few want to pay anyone to make it. So the people who make it either are people who don't have to
by TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
To a close approximation, everyone wants to make art, but very few want to pay anyone to make it. So the people who make it either are people who don't have to worry about money (because they are independently wealthy) or they're the lucky few who get paid.
- chrisweekly 4y ago> "the people who make [art] either are people who don't have to worry about money (because they are independently wealthy) or they're the lucky few who get paid." -- or they live with much less $ and financial security than they otherwise might.
- test6554 4y agoSure, it pays to be a rockstar, pro-athlete, e-sports champion, celebrity, or lottery winner. But the chances of actually being those things is so small that people can't count on them for their livelyhood. So mere mortals have to focus their time and energy into having a backup plan.
- pydry 4y ago>very few want to pay anyone to make it Or theyre prioritizing rent, bills, medical care and retirement.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- brazzy 4y ago...or they are intensely passionate about making art, to the point where they're willing to live in poverty to pursue it.
- boredemployee 4y agoI was lucky enough to make a living out of music for almost 10 years until the pandemic starts and then I lost everything
- reidjs 4y agoIs it too difficult to adapt to online platforms for your music? Does your music only work in person or is it too difficult to promote it online? Asking out of curiosity because I saw this happen to a lot of local comedians as well, but many just started using online tools to perform for their fans. Admittedly not for everyone so many had to get day jobs.
- colinmhayes 4y agoFrom what I can tell most musicians make most of their money touring and selling merch. The top 40 artists make plenty through streaming, but everyone else is getting pennies. Not being able to tour and people staying inside probably made it a lot tougher to sell merch, so musicians were struggling.
- boredemployee 4y agoIt is a very specific niche where online presence is extremely valued so you can get shows. That's pretty draining for introverts like me. And, it seems that after the pandemic, a new phenomenon has emerged where you have to be part of a political and social agenda to please the contractors.
- Inhibit 4y agoI'm not sure if this applies to the OP but I've known quite a few full or part time set musicians, instrument players, and similar performers who don't have a "following". They're simply people who get paid for making music well. Often as part of a performance. Promotion and marketing isn't generally what they do.
- hardware2win 4y ago>everyone wants to make art, but very few want to pay anyone to make it. It sounds like research
- BirAdam 4y agoNo. Corporations invest very large sums of money in research. Militaries do the same.
- oldsecondhand 4y agoCorporations also invest huge amount of money into art, see Hollywood or the popular music industry. Governments do the same (especially outside of the US).
- coldtea 4y agoMostly to directly usable research (and bullshit PR "moonshots"). Far far less to basic research.
- t-3 4y agoCorporations and militaries invest large sums, but only to study things that can be exploited for profit or explosions. If you want to study some plant or animal without a known or suspected economic use, good luck. If your field of science doesn't kill people, help targeting rockets, or make bigger booms, good luck. If you want to research in history, humanities, or liberal arts, good luck!
- colinmhayes 4y agoWhy would anyone pay you to research something that isn’t useful to them?
- t-3 4y agoExactly my point. Research is not being funded, because money is not interested in science.
- ramraj07 4y agoUnless I absolutely want to consume the art you make, why would I want to pay for it? I actually pay a lot for art every week. Most people do. It’s called music and movies. So the translation is, “everyone wants to make some random art but no one wants to pay for random unsolicited art.” Which seems fine by me!
- notacoward 4y ago> I actually pay a lot for art every week. Most people do. It’s called music and movies. How much of what you pay goes to the artists? If most of it goes to rentiers, then the artists themselves need other means of support so they can keep making art.
- arrosenberg 4y agoYou are no different than people who hate paying for basic research because it doesn't directly put a new shiny in their pocket. Art is a societal process, not an individual act.
- SMAAART 4y agoIndustrial Design and Graphic Design are also Arts, so we consume Art every day, most everything we use or buy start with Art.
- geoduck14 4y ago>we consume Art every day Food is an art, too. Good food is ... good
- hoseja 4y agoI don't think the OP is making a value statement, just an observation. It's perfectly OK nobody wants to pay for other people's random art, nonetheless most people still have at least some drive to create art.
- ocimbote 4y ago> Unless I absolutely want to consume the art you make, why would I want to pay for it? I understand that "if there's an act of buying, there's consumption" from your perspective, but I'd mostly disagree with that statement and actually, I think it's quite a narrow perspective. For every act of buying, there's an act of selling. But in the reality I see, many artists sell to produce rather than they produce to sell. So the act of selling is quite flawed from, say, a company selling its products, and the same is true for the act of buying: many don't buy to own or consume, but to support or for a naively genuine sense of beauty. You may very well boil it down to "money give, money take" but the symbolic here is far stronger than the capitalist perspective of art as a market. Also, I'm not ignoring the attraction of the market for artists and buyers alike, it's just not the whole story.
- shard 4y agoJohn Adams wrote: "I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain." To me that statement is saying that one should first establish power, then achieve prosperity, then one would have time for leisure. This is true on a national level as well as a family level.
- lupire 4y ago
- bitxbitxbitcoin 4y agoCurious that that coincides with three generations. “Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.”
- gmadsen 4y agoshouldn't a society ideally all of those at once? maybe the allocation percentages change in line with generation changes in the quote, but politics and war will always be needed, at a minimum to prevent historical mistakes
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- V-2 4y agoSounds somewhat related to the "tough times create strong men, strong men create easy times, easy times create weak men, weak men create tough times" adage. (Men and women, of course!)
- HWR_14 4y agoOnly superficially. Adams is a standard "I want my kids to have the opportunities I never had". The other one is, well, there's a whole lot of other responses that go more into what the other one is.
- yieldcrv 4y agoContemporary artists (people still alive) are notoriously bad at economics and consistently seem also unable to empathize with their potential pool of customers, most of this is because it is frustrating for them to convert their passion into predictable monetary respect. This is reflected in pricing, pricing discussions, and the sales process. Adding that into art studies could do a lot for that economy and passion.