4 ms·

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 peo

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 Your solution on the other hand seems to be that art is outdated and artists should give it up if they aren't making money from it?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.

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.