11 ms·

Apparently you read a different article because I got the wandering part but I didn't get the 'many good points' part. I'm sorry but the section you quoted is

Apparently you read a different article because I got the wandering part but I didn't get the 'many good points' part. I'm sorry but the section you quoted is utterly fatuous, without any kind of figures to back it up. I could quite as easily say that the vast number of painters, poets, authors, actors, musicians and sculptors that I personally know would be estatic to be earning $75,000 a year (or equivalent depending on location). Especially since most of them are currently struggling on a minicule percentage of that amount year after year after year without any certainty that they will eventually be able to use the skills they've honed to pay their way in society. As far as I can tell her entire argument seems to boil down to 'Art is special and people should give money to artists because it's special'. I'm not entirely sure how that can be taken as any kind of argument. Art of any kind is a skill, it takes years of hard work and dedication to hone that skill. Her intimation that 'Art' is the domain of the muse and inspiration utterly ignores the enormous amounts of effort every single artist commits to honing their craft. This kind of idiotic talk just makes me so damn furious. Segregating artists as some kind of 'special needs cases' that should rely on the goodwill of others in order to do normal things like want to raise a family or buy a house or pay for dinner out is a disgusting suggestion, not worthy of consideration.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Maybe you did read a different article because if I had to sum it up I'd say "people shouldn't give money to artists because [they|it] are special". If your friends were buggy whip makers in the age of motor cars you'd tell them to give it up. If they responded "but buggy whips are my life" then you'd be well within your right to say suck it up. Just like if someone wanted to work 2 or 3 days a week to spend more time with their kids, or take 6 month holidays every year to wander in the Andes. Everybody makes career and life choices, everybody gets to live with the consequences.
- steerpike 17y ago
  The best way society can support the Arts is to allow Art to spread, and to continue to encourage giving money to artists. That seems pretty natural to most people anyway, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom. That's her final sentence, I don't know what the take away from that is if it isn't 'People should give money to artists out of the generosity of their heart.' Your solution on the other hand seems to be that art is outdated and artists should give it up if they aren't making money from it? Art = Buggy whips in your argument apparently? Not sure what motor cars are supposed to equate to but I'm sure most 'artists' would be willing to move towards making them if you could explain to us what they are in your analogy. Everybody makes career and life choices, everybody gets to live with the consequences. This is true, except that in the case of artists it's incredibly difficult to assume personal responsibility for their own success. Let's say some struggling writer's day job is a programmer (a not uncommon situation). If this person dedicates a good amount of time towards programming, enjoys it and sticks with it, honing their craft day by day then it's a pretty sure thing that those choices will pay off in the form of a decent job and comfortable salary. There is nothing he can do to guarantee that his writing will pay off no matter what career and life choices he makes. Now here's my main point: there is no fundamental difference between the process required to become a good programmer and the process required to become a good writer. The personal choices, decisions and personal(* ) rewards required to stick with and become capable at both are almost identical. Why on earth is this woman trying to maintain that 'Art' is some esoteric special case that should be treated any differently from so many other identical processes? (* ) By 'personal rewards' I mean that the level of self worth and enjoyment for engaging in any classically 'artistic' process is often exactly the same as that enjoyed by scientists thinking about new theories, architects thinking about beautiful design, programmers having a eureka moment with code or any number of similar experiences across any number of professions. EDIT: I'll also just take a second to respond to this part of your comment: Just like if someone wanted to work 2 or 3 days a week to spend more time with their kids, or take 6 month holidays every year to wander in the Andes. The comparison between taking a holiday or spending time with the kids and engaging in some artistic process - as if 'doing art' is the same as taking a holiday is exactly what I think this woman is promoting and it's exactly what I think is so moronic about the article. Being good at anything artistic is f'ing hard work. Full stop.
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    I thought by giving money she meant in return for "work" as she defined it repeatedly throughout the article, not as charity. But on rereading I guess the second half could be talking about charity or patronage. I don't think looking after kids or climbing remote mountains is easy, but I think they may be rewarding in ways other than monetary. I also think society benefits from these things but if we're talking about society's benefit then copyright is the wrong tool to reward artists. But I stand by my point, doing something artistic that may not pay off financially,regardless of your hard work or skill, is a choice just as buying many lottery tickets is a choice. Many people choose careers that they know in advance will not provide financial security (and this includes some artists). Save your sympathy for them, not the ones gambling without understanding the odds.
  - jrwoodruff 17y ago
    The problem with art is as soon as you take money for creating it, before it's created, it's not yours. The many facets of the graphic design profession, for instance, is arguably the equivalent of working artists. But the work they create is work that is agreed upon for a predetermined price. Same with writing. Textbooks, manuals, reference, PR, maybe even journalism are all writing professions - a piece written for a predetermined salary. Work. What sets work and artistic expression apart is that 'art,' as she's defining it, is whatever the f* you want it to be. That's what you can't 'expect' to get paid buckets for.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      And where does the money paid to the author of (say) a textbook come from? Why is the finished textbook valuable to the publisher?
      - jrwoodruff 17y ago
        Mass-production and standardization, in answer to both questions. While authoring a text book takes skill and practice, it is a process. The same could be said of a Brittany Spears album. They are carefully crafted to appeal to a wide audience. Art serves no one other than the creator. Try to tell Picasso realism is more popular, or Charles Bukowski that he needs to tone it down. Not gonna happen. Because they weren't doing it for money, but simply for the pleasure of doing it - living; satisfying that itch to create something exactly as they wanted to. Obviously, sometimes artists happen to strike a chord with society. Their vision becomes mainstream, their work becomes collectible, lots of money trades hands. But this didn't happen because an editor said "Bukowski, go write something these damn hippies will like and I'll pay you $$$" More often, an artist strikes a chord with a few people. They make a little money. They keep their day job. Maybe they get a grant.
- griftah 17y ago
  Do you mean that art is as useless now as whips in the age of motor cars?
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    I don't think art or buggy whips are useless. But if my sole goal was to generate income, I'd not start my business plan with either. Luckily for everyone, most people's goals include factors other than profit. Hence symphony orchestras and philosophers exist despite lack of potential upside on their time investment.
  - jerf 17y ago
    See, this is why you shouldn't use metaphors in arguments. Since there's always a point that doesn't apply, expect people to zoom in on that part. How about this: When you produce something without having negotiated a payment in advance, thus establishing its value to somebody, you have no right to complain when nobody finds enough value in the work to give you money. You are free to produce all the art, buggy whips, windows, or any other object you want, but you are not free to demand that people give you money afterward. You are free to try to convince them to do so (marketing), but insisting that people MUST appreciate your art with money is actually an infringement of other people's rights to have their own valuations of things, as you are imposing your valuations on them. (That's a critical point there, BTW; "right to have your own valuation" may not be a right frequently talked about but it's really quite fundamental to many of the other much flashier and popular rights.)
    - tptacek 17y ago
      If I produce a buggy whip, put it on a store shelf, and demand $75,000 for it, you are entitled not to pay for it. You are not entitled to take it. If I produce a Feist album, put it on a store shelf, and demand $15 for it, you are entitled --- in fact, advised --- not to pay for it. But you are also not entitled to copy it. I do not understand what is so hard to understand about this situation. The music labels suck. A lot of artists suck. When something sucks, you don't do business with it. You get no other rights and privileges. They can charge $15 or $75,000. They can give you FLAC files or .EXEs that play music by hijacking the scheduler loop in your kernel. Your options: (1) agree to their terms, or (2) stay away from them.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

Maybe you did read a different article because if I had to sum it up I'd say "people shouldn't give money to artists because [they|it] are special". If your friends were buggy whip makers in the age of motor cars you'd tell them to give it up. If they responded "but buggy whips are my life" then you'd be well within your right to say suck it up. Just like if someone wanted to work 2 or 3 days a week to spend more time with their kids, or take 6 month holidays every year to wander in the Andes. Everybody makes career and life choices, everybody gets to live with the consequences.

steerpike 17y ago
The best way society can support the Arts is to allow Art to spread, and to continue to encourage giving money to artists. That seems pretty natural to most people anyway, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom. That's her final sentence, I don't know what the take away from that is if it isn't 'People should give money to artists out of the generosity of their heart.' Your solution on the other hand seems to be that art is outdated and artists should give it up if they aren't making money from it? Art = Buggy whips in your argument apparently? Not sure what motor cars are supposed to equate to but I'm sure most 'artists' would be willing to move towards making them if you could explain to us what they are in your analogy. Everybody makes career and life choices, everybody gets to live with the consequences. This is true, except that in the case of artists it's incredibly difficult to assume personal responsibility for their own success. Let's say some struggling writer's day job is a programmer (a not uncommon situation). If this person dedicates a good amount of time towards programming, enjoys it and sticks with it, honing their craft day by day then it's a pretty sure thing that those choices will pay off in the form of a decent job and comfortable salary. There is nothing he can do to guarantee that his writing will pay off no matter what career and life choices he makes. Now here's my main point: there is no fundamental difference between the process required to become a good programmer and the process required to become a good writer. The personal choices, decisions and personal(* ) rewards required to stick with and become capable at both are almost identical. Why on earth is this woman trying to maintain that 'Art' is some esoteric special case that should be treated any differently from so many other identical processes? (* ) By 'personal rewards' I mean that the level of self worth and enjoyment for engaging in any classically 'artistic' process is often exactly the same as that enjoyed by scientists thinking about new theories, architects thinking about beautiful design, programmers having a eureka moment with code or any number of similar experiences across any number of professions. EDIT: I'll also just take a second to respond to this part of your comment: Just like if someone wanted to work 2 or 3 days a week to spend more time with their kids, or take 6 month holidays every year to wander in the Andes. The comparison between taking a holiday or spending time with the kids and engaging in some artistic process - as if 'doing art' is the same as taking a holiday is exactly what I think this woman is promoting and it's exactly what I think is so moronic about the article. Being good at anything artistic is f'ing hard work. Full stop.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  I thought by giving money she meant in return for "work" as she defined it repeatedly throughout the article, not as charity. But on rereading I guess the second half could be talking about charity or patronage. I don't think looking after kids or climbing remote mountains is easy, but I think they may be rewarding in ways other than monetary. I also think society benefits from these things but if we're talking about society's benefit then copyright is the wrong tool to reward artists. But I stand by my point, doing something artistic that may not pay off financially,regardless of your hard work or skill, is a choice just as buying many lottery tickets is a choice. Many people choose careers that they know in advance will not provide financial security (and this includes some artists). Save your sympathy for them, not the ones gambling without understanding the odds.
- jrwoodruff 17y ago
  The problem with art is as soon as you take money for creating it, before it's created, it's not yours. The many facets of the graphic design profession, for instance, is arguably the equivalent of working artists. But the work they create is work that is agreed upon for a predetermined price. Same with writing. Textbooks, manuals, reference, PR, maybe even journalism are all writing professions - a piece written for a predetermined salary. Work. What sets work and artistic expression apart is that 'art,' as she's defining it, is whatever the f* you want it to be. That's what you can't 'expect' to get paid buckets for.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    And where does the money paid to the author of (say) a textbook come from? Why is the finished textbook valuable to the publisher?
    - jrwoodruff 17y ago
      Mass-production and standardization, in answer to both questions. While authoring a text book takes skill and practice, it is a process. The same could be said of a Brittany Spears album. They are carefully crafted to appeal to a wide audience. Art serves no one other than the creator. Try to tell Picasso realism is more popular, or Charles Bukowski that he needs to tone it down. Not gonna happen. Because they weren't doing it for money, but simply for the pleasure of doing it - living; satisfying that itch to create something exactly as they wanted to. Obviously, sometimes artists happen to strike a chord with society. Their vision becomes mainstream, their work becomes collectible, lots of money trades hands. But this didn't happen because an editor said "Bukowski, go write something these damn hippies will like and I'll pay you $$$" More often, an artist strikes a chord with a few people. They make a little money. They keep their day job. Maybe they get a grant.
griftah 17y ago
Do you mean that art is as useless now as whips in the age of motor cars?
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  I don't think art or buggy whips are useless. But if my sole goal was to generate income, I'd not start my business plan with either. Luckily for everyone, most people's goals include factors other than profit. Hence symphony orchestras and philosophers exist despite lack of potential upside on their time investment.
- jerf 17y ago
  See, this is why you shouldn't use metaphors in arguments. Since there's always a point that doesn't apply, expect people to zoom in on that part. How about this: When you produce something without having negotiated a payment in advance, thus establishing its value to somebody, you have no right to complain when nobody finds enough value in the work to give you money. You are free to produce all the art, buggy whips, windows, or any other object you want, but you are not free to demand that people give you money afterward. You are free to try to convince them to do so (marketing), but insisting that people MUST appreciate your art with money is actually an infringement of other people's rights to have their own valuations of things, as you are imposing your valuations on them. (That's a critical point there, BTW; "right to have your own valuation" may not be a right frequently talked about but it's really quite fundamental to many of the other much flashier and popular rights.)
  - tptacek 17y ago
    If I produce a buggy whip, put it on a store shelf, and demand $75,000 for it, you are entitled not to pay for it. You are not entitled to take it. If I produce a Feist album, put it on a store shelf, and demand $15 for it, you are entitled --- in fact, advised --- not to pay for it. But you are also not entitled to copy it. I do not understand what is so hard to understand about this situation. The music labels suck. A lot of artists suck. When something sucks, you don't do business with it. You get no other rights and privileges. They can charge $15 or $75,000. They can give you FLAC files or .EXEs that play music by hijacking the scheduler loop in your kernel. Your options: (1) agree to their terms, or (2) stay away from them.