someone wrote:
Artists of all walks should be compensated for their work and
intellectual property—
hmmm, i hear bits of my old prof. from grad school (mfa-painting & drawing)
coming out....& probably that & i'm turning into a cranky old man...
my 1st question: why should they be compensated?
next: who should compensate them?
next: the term "artist" is a VERY BROAD term, and is actually a relative new term, that
came about during the time of the renaissance (has to do w/ the idea of craftsmen becoming
'artists')...
i of course don't know great examples of music, but here are some
visual art examples:
1. in his lifetime (37 yrs) van gogh sold only one painting to his brother, who
also basically supported him his whole life (poor vincent failed at every career he
tried), and now some 100+ past his
death his paintings are amongst the most
valuable works of visual art around (he seems to compete w/ picasso and Klimt-
which confuses me, in all my yrs of school KLIMT was never listed amongst the "best"
"greatest", etc...so that one confuses me, there is no accounting for taste)...
reason why VG was bad in his lifetime: when people saw his works they
thought HE COULDN'T DRAW!!! his work did not conform to conventions of the time!
of course later folks looked to his work, he was influential, etc there you have it.
sad note: his younger brother who supported him: died 6 mos after vincent...
2. picasso-was supported by a number of "rich" benefactors, the main one early
in his career was the steins (as in gertrude). you know the story on him, his later
yrs he lived in castles, when he filled one up w/ work, he'd buy another...
when he died in '73, his estate was valued at over $500 million.
3. pollock was
supported by peggy guggenhiem, then betty parsons in his lifetime (well
he did work in the WPA projects), but he never really saw the wealth that his
work commanded after he died.
the point is: your work has to be seen/valued by someone in order for the work
to support your lifestyle. in these cases i've given it's wealthy people
who are in power (and this of course shifts as times change, in 1800s
it was railroads, banking, in 1900s it was oil, and now it's still oil, but
is shifting to technology too)
so yes, if your work is valued...you have a shot, there is no gaurentee though.
most of the stories seem to turn up like vincents, someone's work is discovered
long after they are dead, and becomes valued by new generation for whatever reason...
the fruits of that work are never seen by the original creator.
sadly stuff like this makes good press too (they are always interesting stories).
i'm not saying that you
shouldn't be compensated, but the arts are a hard business to
crack...who is your audience (and in the visual arts, we always talked about
most people have very little background information about art, so the audience is small
and uninformed)....
to any & all who live by the selling your goods as a creative individual
i salute you, i'm sure you have worked hard,i myself just never got there.
i think i've sold like 5 paintings in my life, hardly enough to live on, believe me.
how this relates to music/looping...you find the dots and draw them....
and to ZOE K: her blog on music and money was very interesting. a great read...
i did send it to a friend who's a professional musician, i thought she'd
find it interesting....and i thought amanda palmer's mode of working was
interesting and creative also.....
s---
www.myspace.com/scotthansen
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03632389016121
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...61416906&hl=en
|
