4 ms·

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 in

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.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Um, that's all well and good, but misses the point of my question. My fault for being subtle. Why would a publisher pay an artist to create a work? What does the publisher need it for? The answer: to sell it. How can the publisher profit from this arrangement? Without the exclusive right to that work (i.e. copyright), they can't.

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.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Um, that's all well and good, but misses the point of my question. My fault for being subtle. Why would a publisher pay an artist to create a work? What does the publisher need it for? The answer: to sell it. How can the publisher profit from this arrangement? Without the exclusive right to that work (i.e. copyright), they can't.