Let's see if this gets any play...

[sen_no_ongaku]

Proposal: Art should be created without the expectation of material compensation.

True or false?

Commonplace attitude or not?



[EDIT: This is not intended to imply that something created for with such an expectation cannot be art, though I may propose that sometime later.]

Comments

[fairoriana.livejournal.com]

I have such a problem with the definition of the word "art" I'm not sure I can handle this, but my core answer is false. Money is required to sustain life. Time is required to earn money. There are people who are such talented artists that society is better if they spend all their time producting art, instead of working at McDs to feed themselves and making art in their spare times. So seperating art from money only works if you have artists who are independently wealthy, or if the art can be accomplished in spare time.

That said, deciding that you are an artist does not mean that society owes you a right to make a living solely creating whatever your artistic expression is. If you make art no one wants or enjoys, it may still be art (another discussion) but society is under no obligation to fund your pursuit of it full time.

The exchange of money for art can be seen as society valuing the contribution of the art. Society can be dumb, and wrong, but has the right to make decisions about what it will and will not support.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

What about art people enjoy and but choose not (or refuse) to pay for? When someone acquires a song, an album, or a movie, from a PTP network, they take pleasure in and consume an artist's work, yet choose not to support it. Or when someone buys a bootleg recording of a concert, or a pirated DVD.

---

Why is being an artist considered different from, say, a doctor, or a lawyer? While salary is (somewhat loosely) correlated with competence, there is generally some base level of living wage that being a doctor will provide. Why not for us?

By no means am I trying to say that the situations should be similar; but nor should we assume they should be different, either.

[fairoriana.livejournal.com]

I've taken my stand on the former issue, too. I always purchase (usually in CD form, but not always) the music I listen to. I do not allow (when I can control it) other people to burn my CDs. I believe it's my moral obligation. Someone who downloads a ripped song is saying they want the art, they just don't want to pay for it. In my personal moral code, that's as much a type of theft as taking the twinkie from the Supermart. I understand other people have different perspectives on it, but I am only making these moral decisions for myself.

If doctors and lawyers didn't produce services people felt they needed, they would struggle too. If no one got sick, needed contracts, or got sued, they'd go out of business. It's both a matter of the availability (CAT scans are not broadcast on public radio) and of people's choices of what they value enough to spend their money on. It's also an issue of percieved necessity. Given a choice between that surgery to relieve and abcess and buying that painting from the artist you like, most people will see the surgery as more necessary. Obviously being able to have both would be the ideal, but few people are in a position to purchase all of what they want and need.

I buy art. I have purchased graphic art recently (and told the artist that she needed to increase the price). I just got two CDs in the mail last week. I buy tickets to the opera, or concerts, or theater. I buy tickets to museums to see art. However, I buy the art I enjoy, even while I recognize the right of artists to create types of art I do not enjoy. I do not think, however, I am obligated to pay for the art I do not enjoy, except possibly through a portion of my taxes.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

I guess my real point is that the very existence of trading on PTP networks implies that a large portion of our population feels that what they are doing is not wrong; that (consciously or subconsciously) something about music, or movies, or what have you, entitles them to acquire it for free.

Should this be?

----

Interestingly, no one feels that top-notch gourmet food should be free. Perhaps this is because its material cost is apparent to everyone.

[ppaladin.livejournal.com]

I would argue, rather than ask 'should artists be better rewarded' ask, is there a problem with our current system -- if so, how can we fix it? Do we raise taxes to establish more grants to support artists, such that artists need concern themselves with 'making money' less? If so, we must also taken into account the market distortions that such a grant-making body would create. An artist would also need to be adept at grant applications and such to receive any of this cash (just as most big name scientists today often spend more time applying for grants that will fund their projects, than working on the projects themselves).

I guess where I am going with this is if artists should be better rewarded, where should that money come from? While our capitalist system is far from perfect, keeping the market as free as possible allows our own innate greed/desire for more video games, money, etc, to serve as an engine for innovation and development.

From BD

[(Anonymous)]

Well, as someone who will very soon be a lawyer... ;) An artist is different from being a lawyer because one is a lawyer by profession. There are few, if any, people (to my knowledge) that practice law as a hobby. Whereas there are professional artists and amateur artists and those who just create art for fun for themselves and/or their friends.

As a doctor or a lawyer, your work is entirely for the benefit of someone else. Whatever joy or satisfaction you get out of helping others or proving your skill, this is secondary to doing your job well so that the sick are healed and the law upheld. This is not to say that some artists are only producing art for the enjoyment of other people, but art is a rewarding enough endevour that many, many people would do it would do it just for themselves.

As for the copyright issues, you may be getting into a whole different topic there ;)

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

The exchange of money for art can be seen as society valuing the contribution of the art. Society can be dumb, and wrong, but has the right to make decisions about what it will and will not support.

This is certainly true of strongly capitalist societies, such as America.

At the same time, (my understanding is) many (more Socialist) European governments take a much more active hand in supporting their artists, which means that their societies, as a whole, presumably have less direct say in what art to support.

As a comparison, then, to America, is there correspondingly less private support of the arts in those countries, I wonder?

[fairoriana.livejournal.com]

At some point, someone has to make a decision about what art is valuable. If resources were no limitation, many people (if not most) would rather make art than write SQL queries or perform surgery or take tolls. So if we could support everyone who wanted to be an artist and make art, we wouldn't have many people left to do the other things that need doing. Ergo we must choose which art we want to support. The question is whether individual people will pick which art they value (and I agree -- the consuming public's taste can be highly suspect!), or whether governmental/public/larger agencies will be given that mission.

I believe that the role of art is to inspire *something* in the viewer/listener/appreciator. I do not believe art exists for art's sake. So if 2,000,000 are moved to something by Thomas Kincaid's paintings, and there are 200 people in the whole world who understand a particular piece of abstract art... why do we say that the abstract art is real and valuable, while the Kincaid picture is dross and of no worth? The actual measure of people affected and influenced might be greater with the picture of the lighthouse.

I'm not sure how else to value art, other than to priviledge the effect art has on people.

From Balsamic Dragon (hi there!)

[(Anonymous)]

Art is a big idea. I have to break it down into smaller ideas to really get a handle on it. Note that these ideas overlap.

Art that stretches the boundaries of what can be done by humanity: for example, certain kinds of music, dance, sculpture (often described as "fine art") usually needs to be compensated, because it takes a lifetime of work to hone the skills required to create such art.

Art that is meant to convey an important idea, for example certain kinds of literature, poetry, drama, often suffers from material compensation. The idea itself is the driving force of such art and, if shared with material compensation, it tends to be less powerful. Plus, this kind of art requires more passion and less finely honed skill.

Art that is designed mostly to entertain, for example, movies and television, not only _requires_ material compensation, but in a capitalist society (in theory), the more reliant upon material compensation directly from consumers, the better the art.

Art that is a performance, usually transient, in which the performers get as much out of the art as the audience (if indeed there are any), for example, jam sessions, some theater, storytelling, seems to suffer from material compensation, because the artist no longer needs to draw satisfaction solely from the performance.

As far as commonplace attitudes, I think that most people have not given significant thought to what art _should_ be, nor do I personally think it is an area that requires _rules_. People refer to an artist as "selling out", meaning accepting money in order to lower their artistic standards and appeal to a wider audience, but I think that is largely confined to the popular music industry and is a direct result of the major problems in that industry right now.

[ethicsgradient.livejournal.com]

I, on the other hand, get two words into your proposal before I have trouble. What do you mean by 'should'?

I believe that some art is created without the expectation of material compensation. All of the art generated by my fine wife cute_fuzzy_evil falls into this category. There is certainly also art that is created with the strong expectation of material compensation. Most mainstream pop albums, for instance.

But what do we mean by should? Is art that is made without this expectation more valid, genuine, or personal? Do you imply that perhaps art that is ceated with materialistic gains in mind is not art at all? Is the value of the art itself somehow dependent on the intentions of its creator?

This entire enterprise seems by far not PoMo enough for you, sen_no_ongaku. I'd expect you to say that once the art is out there, its genesis is of little import.

Maybe there's another angle here that you're trying to get at, intentionally or otherwise. There is certainly an attitude among certain artists that if you produce marketable art that you are doing something wrong; that art that is pleasing to enough people to earn you money isn't new, experimental, or edgy enough to be worthwhile. Adherents to this philosophy would likely agree, for the reason that any artist who produces art he expects to bring him wealth is either not producing art that is worth their time, or out of touch with reality.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

PoMo is all about reserving the right to be inconsistent.

----

I note, with interest, that you assume that I'm talking about the value and integrity of art. I did not intend this, and so I'm going to ignore it for now. I may come back and address it later.

Rather, I'm interested in the question of what kind of living artists have the right to expect.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

Well, this topic has kind of expanded, so I'll try to address what you say, with the note that by now, I've become a fan of these ideas:

-- sylvantechie: "Art should be created with an appropriate expectation of material compensation (whether high, low, or non-existent)"

-- Me: "...damage is done to the quality of an artist's work when he/she feels pressured to produce for monetary gain; when finishing a piece of art for public consumption takes precedence over completing it, (as it were)...

I don't mean to claim that creating something for payment necessarily reduces the worth of a piece of art. Maybe what I think is most important is that the impetus for its creation exists regardless of the expectation of compensation.

[2h2o.livejournal.com]

I agree, but deserving artists should be rewarded ultimately. This attitude stems in part from a distaste/abhorrence of blatantly commercial "art" like Thomas Kinkaid and the Boston Pops.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

I would say, though, that there is a spectrum of commercialism. Is a great song made somehow less great when featured in an ad? Does an orchestra reduce its worth by performing an arrangement of Bohemian Rhapsody? (Well, this one certainly did...but was it inevitable?).

Hell, I imagine even the most uncomprimising bands we both dig have an expectation of being paid for their efforts...though they may not necessarily make their music for the purpose of being paid.

When does something get too commercial?

[2h2o.livejournal.com]

Is a great song made somehow less great when featured in an ad?
No! Writing a song to use it in an ad make it less worthy, but having it picked up later - recognized for what it is - does not. The best art affects us on as many levels as possible, so it's inevitable that some of it will be adopted by the masses, including via commercials. The problem is art that aims only for surface appeal.

[shellaby.livejournal.com]

Interesting question. Interesting points of view above.

[dietrich.livejournal.com]

Hm. I'm going to agree with one commenter who was confused by the word "should."

I don't think that paying an artist necessarily makes their art worse, but it's been known to happen; mainstream writers who get paid to churn out romance or mystery novels, for example, often produce something that couldn't be called "art" in the same way that some literary novels can; John Updike creates literary novels, but the volume he is called upon to create (in order to be paid) negatively affects their quality.

But being paid to produce art certainly increases the quality of life of the artist, and as an artist myself, I definitely would like it if I could make a living at it. The trouble seems to come in when an artist has to create more than he has in him to create in a short span of time, in order to make that money. Alternately, the trouble might be said to come in when the struggle and suffering required to create the art is lessened by the compensation earned for it, and therefore either 1. the inspiration for the art is lessened, 2. the artist is no longer creating out of pure need to create/enjoyment of creation, but rather for monetary gain, or 3. both.

But your question was about whether one *should* create art without expectation of material compensation.

I think that artists who produce great work deserve to be paid, and it's a travesty that so many of them are not. But if nobody produced art without the expectation of material compensation, I don't think we'd have any art. While I don't necessarily subscribe to the notion that being paid always ruins art, I do believe that the truest/best art comes not from the hope of making a living at it, but from the sheer need to create. If you get paid, it's a bonus.

At the same time, I don't think that we value our artists enough in society, and I don't like the romanticization of the "starving artist" notion which, I think, keeps artists societally devalued.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

I do believe that the truest/best art comes not from the hope of making a living at it, but from the sheer need to create. If you get paid, it's a bonus.

I'm certainly with you here. That's the attitude I've taken, anyhow.

---

the romanticization of the "starving artist" notion which, I think, keeps artists societally devalued.

This is something that's always both intrigued and distressed me. I don't know if this attitude is particular to America, but my impression is that artists are generally portrayed as on the fringes of society, disconnected from everyday life...and so detached from the material needs of "normal people". As such, there is no need to give them something they don't wany anyway...

I think, also, the artistic life is seen (appropriately or not) as a calling not dissimlar to choosing a life of spiritual contemplation; and, as such, are more interested in the ineffable than the material.

Most of the composers I know are just cool, but regular folks who happen to love and be good at writing music.

I wonder whose fault this is, if anybody's.

(I recall a movie I was told about, in which a modern composer is put on trial for murder. The jury is ready to let him off the hook until the prosecution plays a piece of his -- after which they find him guilty.)

[magdalene1.livejournal.com]

I don't want artists or myself as an artist to think strictly commercially when they create - I want the art that needs to be made no matter what, in some form, in some way. Artists are truth-tellers, and most of us would do what we do even if it never makes us any money.

Still, I want money. And I want to be an artist full-time. Does that make me less of an artist? Or does it make me focus my time and my attention differently in a way that makes my art suffer? I'll let you know if anyone actually pays me for anything I do.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

Another thought...

Perhaps it would fair to say, then, that damage is done to the quality of an artist's work when he/she feels pressured to produce for monetary gain; when finishing a piece of art starts to take precedence over its inherent artistic worth...whatever that means...

[sylvantechie.livejournal.com]

As the statement stands, false. This is clear to me when I look at the contrapositive (or is it converse?): Everything created with an expectation of material compensation should not be art. IMO, everything one does/creates should be approached as art, regardless of material compensation.

However, reading through the comments, I think the focus is more on the compensation and expectation side than the art side. There are two aspects I see to this, what is and what ought be.

In the 'what is' category, I think art, like any other endeavor in this day and age, should be created with an awareness of the market forces in play. The artist should expect no material compensation if they're creating something for which there is no demonstrable demand. This is balanced against the demand generation activites of the artist (marketing, networking, etc.) and the artists belief in the worth of their product contrary to the current market indicators (i.e. people don't yet know that they need it, but they will demand it as soon as they become aware of it). The proposal modification for this would be 'Art should be created with an appropriate expectation of material compensation (whether high, low, or non-existent).'

In the 'what ought be' category, I think art should be compensated materially. How one goes about this is a very tricky endeavor. Were I emperor of the universe, I would give every one (i.e. all who filed their taxes) a yearly stipend that had to be spent on Art. While the logistics of administering and auditing such a thing would be complicated, it would not be impossible.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

The contrapositive I had in mind was, "Art *can* be created with the expectation of material compensation". As I have noted while talking with folks though, I could have been much clearer.

I particularly like "Art should be created with an appropriate expectation of material compensation (whether high, low, or non-existent)." That the most important element is an artist's responsibility to make an informed choice.

That said, should the siutation be different?...which you address. I wish it were so.

[magdalene1.livejournal.com]

I would so vote for you for Emperor of the Universe for so many reasons, really.

[wavyarms.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't have time to read everyone else's comments. But I cry false. You can't expect to get decent art unless you give people time and means to create it. That involves food and rent.

Also, people often appreciate things more when they pay for them.

[traglar.livejournal.com]

I want to argue about this, but I want to do it in person. Happily, that coincides with a general desire to hang out with you and your ilk (to the extent that you can be correctly described as a person with "ilk"), who I haven't seen in quite some time somehow. Got some time..let's see... mid to late next week/weekend following that?