Re: "art" & money, was: amanda palmer

[Miko Biffle <biffoz@gmail.com>]

Scott: These scenarios below are all moot points.  My basic
argument is against simply saying there's NO compelling reason to ask
for compensation for items such as: music downloads; use of your work
in commercial projects; sampling of your work in recognizable form.
It's a disturbing trend to see the expectation shifting from 

"of course you pay for music . . . it's a product." 

to >>>

"music should be free and all those making it should shut up and
realize that. I don't owe that dude I sampled ANYTHING, even though I'm
making bucks using his work."

> my 1st question: why should they be compensated?
The "artist" decides to commercially market their "goods". If no one
buys, fine. That gives no one the right to pirate their work and use it
for their own commercial purposes. These are the "rights" I'm
discussing. I don't care if NOBODY want's to buy my product. It's my
right to control the use and resale of it.

> next: who should compensate them?
Whoever decides that they would like "the product" for
themselves.  This is basic commercial business ideology. Please
don't suggest that what's mine should somehow be available to other's
FOR FREE, without my authorization. That's called THEFT or PIRACY.

So before we lower our expectations to the assumption that music is
groovy and simply ephemerally floating on airwaves, let's consider that
someone, somewhere might have put a lot of time and effort into making
that music that maybe seems so ephemeral and "non-materialistic", and
that if they decide to charge for it, that's their own
perogative.  I'm mostly opposed to the notion of the "open source"
philosophy and that it's somehow going to be good for everyone.

Of course we all assign our own value judgement to every last thing we
hear and maybe certain individuals may believe their "product" is worth
more than the marketplace will bear. So be it.  People vote with
their dollars.  If PIRATES have decided to make every last
recording available for free somewhere on the internet without prior
agreement with the copyright authors, that's a CRIME, and IMO should
be.  Yeah . . . we all like free, but don't come to my house and
expect me to give you my food, water, car etc.

I shudder when ancient history (pre-industrial) is trotted out to
somehow justify further abuse of working people—espousing a retrograde
back-slide to an era when it was ok to have kids on assembly lines
around the clock, and certain folks had to ride in the back of the
bus—with the inference that this was just how it was and might be a
reality we could see again.  I don't buy it and abhor anyone even
remotely suggesting it.

Yes there has always been "Starving Artists", but I'd prefer we retain
some minimal rights to protect our work while we're still alive.

-- 
Miko Biffle
Biffoz@Gmail.com
"Running scared from all the usual distractions!"

On 10/7/09, scott hansen <evanpeewee@yahoo.com> wrote:

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