> "If I decide to sit behind a desk, take calls, devise flawed business plans, and lie, do I DESERVE to be compensated like a bank CEO....If I sing and prance a

> "If I decide to sit behind a desk, take calls, devise flawed business plans, and lie, do I DESERVE to be compensated like a bank CEO....If I sing and prance around on stage, am I entitled to $110 million a year? It's the same work Madonna does, and that's what she makes." Theoretically, what if you are exactly as good as a bank CEO? What if you sing and dance and compose exactly like Madonna? Then do you deserve to be paid after the fact? When an artist happens to make a piece of art that someone puts value on, what's wrong with the artist receiving money? Especially if the "buyer" were going to pay someone else instead (a shrewd middle man). Perhaps this money is supposed to be thought of as a donation? Still, people want to own art. When an artist randomly makes art and then goes to a market to sell them, is that more like a comission? What about all the farmers and other folks at a market selling wares that weren't pre-comissioned? It's a natural exchange, though. Or maybe I'm brainwashed by culture. Finally, why not just say that "Artists should be compensated for good artwork"? Who cares if it is art or work or whatever. People should pay where they see value and do their best to pay smartly; eg, pay the artist so they produce more and are rewarded, and don't pay, eg the record labels more than their fair share (damn extortionists!). Technology seems to be helping in this area. Sometimes work doesn't have a lot of value for other people. That's ok, too. It doesn't matter whether it is art or serious. Honestly, my best projects are those that merge the serious and artistic, but that's a whole other story and cultural perspective. ps - this reminded me of KickStarter http://kickstarter.com http://kickstarter.com