5 ms·

>> "how on Earth to artists, musicians, journalists, authors, etc. ever get paid for anything?" There is exactly 0 danger of running out of creative people, re

by avn2109 12y ago

>> "how on Earth to artists, musicians, journalists, authors, etc. ever get paid for anything?" There is exactly 0 danger of running out of creative people, regardless of whether or not they get paid. The creativity is built into the human psyche at a low level; it existed long before money, and it will exist long after our civilization has crumbled. In fact, we could totally ban music/painting/whatever, and creativity would still be extremely common. Whether or not there exists an entertainment _business_ has nothing to do with promoting the creation of art. In fact, the industrial-entertainment complex is probably a net drag on creative expression via crowding-out effects.

api 12y ago
"There is exactly 0 danger of running out of creative people, regardless of whether or not they get paid." I consider this abusive, exploitative, and mean spirited in the extreme. "Yeah, we enjoy their work and it enriches our lives, but no way we're going to even slightly inconvenience ourselves to support them. Let the artists starve... there'll always be more where those came from!" You could say the same thing about underpaid Chinese sweatshop workers I guess... "there's always more where those came from!"
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  I am writing a novel. After more than two years of working on it intermittently, on nights and weekends, I consider it about 80% complete. (Naturally, it will probably take 2 years to finish the remaining 20%.) I am not being paid to do it. I have no particular expectation that anyone will give me money for it after it is done. I also know that it is probably not as good as a novel written by any of my favorite professional authors. To indulge this new hobby, I have something called "a day job". Other people who create artworks frequently have one. Only a select few have the independent means to create art full time, and some have acquired a large enough base of supporters to make a living at it. We have a wealthy society. As such, we are capable of supporting a certain number of people as artists. But the world does not owe you a living. Less popular and less prolific authors cannot expect to earn enough to write full time just because Stephen King can. A musical performer can't expect to buy a new car even once in his lifetime just because Taylor Swift can now afford one every year for the rest of her life. A painter can't expect to get out of community service because a Banksy can sell for thousands of dollars. The plain fact of the matter is that there are more people who want to be professional artists than society is currently willing to support. Society likes some artists enough to make them rich, but you're not going to be one of them (unless you get really lucky or are terrifyingly talented). There are plenty more that society will support in a middle-class lifestyle. But for the most part, the aspiring artist's default assumption should be that society wouldn't give two steaming piles for a new work, and it should stay that way until well after the first check clears. As for myself, I have no plans to quit my day job. Even if I think that my book is better than Twilight, the author of that... piece... actually has dollar-denominated approval from productive society to write books as her full-time profession. Currently, my plans are to eliminate piracy by seeding the torrents myself, while also providing a painless way for readers to pay me what they want, even if it is just a compliment with no money attached. If I get even one penny, it will be more than what I expected in return for a work of art that no one but me ever asked for. That is why there is no danger to artistic culture. Even if no one else cares for it, there is still a reward for the creators in their pride of craftsmanship, their knowledge that they created something unique, that did not exist until their will brought it into existence.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - yen223 12y ago
    I've recently taken up cooking as a hobby. I've been making at least 2 meals a day, experimenting with a variety of cooking styles. I've invested my own money into equipment and food - most of it is not cheap. Like you, I supported my surprisingly expensive hobby with a day job. That said, I would never ever for a moment think that line cooks don't deserved to get paid, just because I am not.
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      But your analogy is flawed. When a line cook makes a meal, there is a physical good that can only be consumed once. What we are discussing here is whether the line cook should be paid for the recipe, any time anyone uses it, rather than just for the service of preparing the food.
      - api 12y ago
        Your assumption is that producing a recipe is easier than producing food. It's not. Writing a novel is incredibly difficult. It often takes years of absolutely thankless work. Your friends and family think you've gone mad, or you're just wasting your time tooling away on "that book." (Eye roll.) Music is the same: hard work, endless practice, stop energy. "When are you going to quit that band and get a real job?" Culture is not free. It's created by the blood, sweat, and tears of people who are willing to stand up against their own doubts and the subtile discouragement of others to channel some intensely personal muse, refine the signal in thousands of hours of dull practice and repetitive revision, and finally deliver something that we can enjoy. But hey, we're all entitled to their works for free because we're the all-important consumer! The "information should be free" ideology elevates the passive consumer above the active producer both morally and economically. The consumer has all the freedom and all the benefit for none of the work. Once I saw the injustice in this, I could not un-see it. Fundamentally I think it's a half-baked ideology that comes from people who are looking only at the Internet in isolation from the rest of the socioeconomic system. Most of these people are well-intentioned, but the ideology fails. It might work if we lived in a post-scarcity society where income wasn't strictly necessary since the marginal cost of everything is approaching zero. But we're nowhere even close to that.
- gtremper 12y ago
  Lots of people make music and art for fun, without any intention of profit. I don't think this applies Chinese sweatshops

by avn2109 12y ago

api 12y ago

"There is exactly 0 danger of running out of creative people, regardless of whether or not they get paid." I consider this abusive, exploitative, and mean spirited in the extreme. "Yeah, we enjoy their work and it enriches our lives, but no way we're going to even slightly inconvenience ourselves to support them. Let the artists starve... there'll always be more where those came from!" You could say the same thing about underpaid Chinese sweatshop workers I guess... "there's always more where those came from!"

logfromblammo 12y ago
I am writing a novel. After more than two years of working on it intermittently, on nights and weekends, I consider it about 80% complete. (Naturally, it will probably take 2 years to finish the remaining 20%.) I am not being paid to do it. I have no particular expectation that anyone will give me money for it after it is done. I also know that it is probably not as good as a novel written by any of my favorite professional authors. To indulge this new hobby, I have something called "a day job". Other people who create artworks frequently have one. Only a select few have the independent means to create art full time, and some have acquired a large enough base of supporters to make a living at it. We have a wealthy society. As such, we are capable of supporting a certain number of people as artists. But the world does not owe you a living. Less popular and less prolific authors cannot expect to earn enough to write full time just because Stephen King can. A musical performer can't expect to buy a new car even once in his lifetime just because Taylor Swift can now afford one every year for the rest of her life. A painter can't expect to get out of community service because a Banksy can sell for thousands of dollars. The plain fact of the matter is that there are more people who want to be professional artists than society is currently willing to support. Society likes some artists enough to make them rich, but you're not going to be one of them (unless you get really lucky or are terrifyingly talented). There are plenty more that society will support in a middle-class lifestyle. But for the most part, the aspiring artist's default assumption should be that society wouldn't give two steaming piles for a new work, and it should stay that way until well after the first check clears. As for myself, I have no plans to quit my day job. Even if I think that my book is better than Twilight, the author of that... piece... actually has dollar-denominated approval from productive society to write books as her full-time profession. Currently, my plans are to eliminate piracy by seeding the torrents myself, while also providing a painless way for readers to pay me what they want, even if it is just a compliment with no money attached. If I get even one penny, it will be more than what I expected in return for a work of art that no one but me ever asked for. That is why there is no danger to artistic culture. Even if no one else cares for it, there is still a reward for the creators in their pride of craftsmanship, their knowledge that they created something unique, that did not exist until their will brought it into existence.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- yen223 12y ago
  I've recently taken up cooking as a hobby. I've been making at least 2 meals a day, experimenting with a variety of cooking styles. I've invested my own money into equipment and food - most of it is not cheap. Like you, I supported my surprisingly expensive hobby with a day job. That said, I would never ever for a moment think that line cooks don't deserved to get paid, just because I am not.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    But your analogy is flawed. When a line cook makes a meal, there is a physical good that can only be consumed once. What we are discussing here is whether the line cook should be paid for the recipe, any time anyone uses it, rather than just for the service of preparing the food.
    - api 12y ago
      Your assumption is that producing a recipe is easier than producing food. It's not. Writing a novel is incredibly difficult. It often takes years of absolutely thankless work. Your friends and family think you've gone mad, or you're just wasting your time tooling away on "that book." (Eye roll.) Music is the same: hard work, endless practice, stop energy. "When are you going to quit that band and get a real job?" Culture is not free. It's created by the blood, sweat, and tears of people who are willing to stand up against their own doubts and the subtile discouragement of others to channel some intensely personal muse, refine the signal in thousands of hours of dull practice and repetitive revision, and finally deliver something that we can enjoy. But hey, we're all entitled to their works for free because we're the all-important consumer! The "information should be free" ideology elevates the passive consumer above the active producer both morally and economically. The consumer has all the freedom and all the benefit for none of the work. Once I saw the injustice in this, I could not un-see it. Fundamentally I think it's a half-baked ideology that comes from people who are looking only at the Internet in isolation from the rest of the socioeconomic system. Most of these people are well-intentioned, but the ideology fails. It might work if we lived in a post-scarcity society where income wasn't strictly necessary since the marginal cost of everything is approaching zero. But we're nowhere even close to that.
gtremper 12y ago
Lots of people make music and art for fun, without any intention of profit. I don't think this applies Chinese sweatshops