| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- AdamMcclay - 21 Nov 2008 | | | Really there are two responses to this. First, maybe the artist buys lunch with the wages that he earns outside of his art--from his job as a public school teacher, say, or as a barista in some ubiquitous Seattle-based coffee shop. In this case, then the inquiry ends: we do not need to support that artist, because he supports himself by selling tangible goods or services. This, without more, is not a particularly desirable solution. We should want artists to be able to support themselves solely through their art--this would allow them the time and focus to develop themselves, as well as removing any financial disincentive to become an artist in the first place. So, the second, and better, response to the "buying lunch" question is that we need for people to pay the artist voluntarily, without being required to either by law or to prevent the starving artist from starving. And we know that this happens, to an extent, in the world already. We discussed examples were provided of free cultural and moral products that are supported by anonymous voluntary donations: the Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Public Radio, Wikipedia. | |
<
< | I only wonder if this system cannot be improved, beyond simply eliminating copyright. It is not my intention to suggest that the voluntary sector as it exists now is incapable of supporting artists, either aggregated, as in NPR, the Met, or PayPal? aggregating the payments of donors, or otherwise, as in my friends Pete and J, whom I believe are managing to get by on the proceeds of their band, touring the country and taking up residencies in Lower East Side venues that lose money on them. What I do suggest is that the current system should be more centralized, with stricter assurances that an artistic meritocracy exists. I imagine some modernized version of the patronage system that prevailed during the Italian Renaissance. Today, instead of the Medici family, the patrons might be non-profit organizations, funded, as non-profits are, by a mix of tax dollars, major contributions from wealthy private citizens, and voluntary contributions from ordinary citizens. Artists, if they wanted to be paid for their art, would need to apply to be sponsored by one of these patrons--a process similar to applying for a grant. The application could include samplings of the work, and an explanation of why it deserves sponsorship. | >
> | I only wonder if this system cannot be improved, beyond simply eliminating copyright. It is not my intention to suggest that the voluntary sector as it exists now is incapable of supporting artists, either aggregated, as in NPR, the Met, or PayPal? aggregating the payments of donors, or otherwise, as in my friends Pete and J, whom I believe are managing to get by on the proceeds of their band, touring the country and taking up residencies in Lower East Side venues that lose money on them. What I do suggest is that the current system could be supplemented with a more centralized one, run on a strictly meritocratic basis. I imagine some modernized version of the patronage system that prevailed during the Italian Renaissance. Today, instead of the Medici family, the patrons might be non-profit organizations, funded, as non-profits are, by a mix of tax dollars, major contributions from wealthy private citizens, and voluntary contributions from ordinary citizens. Artists, if they wanted to be paid for their art, would need to apply to be sponsored by one of these patrons--a process similar to applying for a grant. The application could include samplings of the work, and an explanation of why it deserves sponsorship. | | | | |
<
< | The advantage of this system is twofold. First, it does not prevent any non-sponsored artist from creating art and distributing it for free, either by supporting themselves producing tangible goods, or by eking out a living, as Pete and J do, from individual, non-aggregated voluntary contributions. In this respect, the patronage system is no different than any other system that currently aggregates donations and funds artists. But I believe the second advantage is what sets the patronage system apart. With only one or a handful of patrons, there would be centralized switchboard for compensating artists financially, while at the same time serving a gatekeeper function with respect to quality. An artist with the patronage of one of these organizations would be a good artist, and fully supported. Other artists may support themselves in the slaughterhouse while developing their work in order to gain patronage; in the meantime, consumers are free to enjoy those artists’ work while the artists themselves enjoy the fruits of attribution. This patronage system seems like a way to make the ideas from our class discussion even more feasible. | >
> | The advantage of this system is that it is not at odds with the existing anarchic, voluntary system of compensating artists. Rather, it creates a second, higher tier of artists, who "never have to work again." As before, any non-sponsored artist may create art and distribute it for free, either by supporting herself by producing tangible goods, or else by eking out a living, as Pete and J do, from individual, non-aggregated voluntary contributions. This is important: as Kate points out below, it is crucial to the vitality of the art that barriers to entry are kept low, and that bottlenecks are eliminated; this is why the grassroots approach is indispensable. But, Kate also talks about fan clubs, t-shirts, buttons, and the like. Again, there is nothing to stop grassroots artists from pursuing these methods, but this is where it seems like, if an artist is to grow beyond a certain point, she will need some big, organized money. She cannot make a t-shirt instantly on a computer, and she cannot ship it across the country through the Web. If she hopes one day to have ten thousand people, maybe more, in her fan club, she will need some stronger backing than I imagine she will get by passing around the bucket at gigs, or soliciting donations on her Myspace account, or even selling individual tracks or albums directly to consumers. I realize that I may just be cynical, and in fact I do not discount the possibility that grassroots support could help, for example, Pete and J make it big. But with the patronage system, if they are good, they will be assured that backing; if they are not good enough, or while they wait for their application to be processed, they can keep on keeping on. | | | | | | | |
<
< | I am working on addressing the comments you've made, but I'm not finished yet. | | |
Adam, while I do not discount the idea of large patronage organizations, I think you are jumping onto this bandwagon a bit prematurely and it may not be the best road for us to go down. For one, anarchic distribution for the first time also means that popular artists are not hand-picked - there's no bottleneck to get through. That is a very important thing we should try to preserve. There are many different ways that artists could get paid without the sort of centralization that you invoke. At one time, the idea of online micropayments was popular. Although it has lost steam, it might still happen (especially if the Internet becomes much more closed than it currently is). That's not a great idea for right now. However, you don't mention the money that artists make from concerts and from selling merchandise. You also don't consider the money a band could make from selling membership to their fan club. Fan club members could be privy to the first round of concert tickets, be the first to receive an mp3, get specialized merchandise sent to them, etc. Music is about identity. Think of all the high school kids with bumper stickers, buttons, and t-shirts. Check out Dave Kusek for more ideas.
-- KateVershov - 05 Dec 2008
\ No newline at end of file |
|