I'm an artist therefore I am automatically entitled to money

[shoulders]

I'm not even the first on CaB to say this

And, moreover, you have said it before. To save time, I refer you to whatever reply I gave back then.

[Pink Gregory]

I'm not even the first on CaB to say this, but the problem with UBI is that it isn't socialism and it's barely social democracy. It's a sweetener for the people who don't thrive in a capitalist system (and capitalism NEEDS these people. capitalism requires 'losers' to function both structurally and psychologically) and a bung to keep demand up during recessions.

It's Keynesianism I suppose but I don't have any formal economics education in case that wasn't obvious.

To be fair I think when people invoke UBI they're also invoking a programme in which there are also at least some universal basic services (transport, healthcare, energy etc).

I agree with you in that in theory it's just some monopoly money to be entered into the rotten system so that it can be sustained rather than reformed, but then it's also closest to what we might end up with in another moment of ruling class crisis if they finally realise that berserk libertarianism doesn't really save them.

[The Mollusk]

But my question for you is, if you made things, and you like what you made and believe you have talent, how do you deal with the feeling that comes from seeing 'successful' people being applauded when they go up on stage? Getting interviewed like their words are important.

Because that always made me quite resentful. I get genuinely annoyed at artists who play three chords on an acoustic and do a bit of singing, knowing that could have been me, if I just had the social skills and patience for the bullshit that comes with that kind of career. I'm still heartbroken to know that being good at music is only a small part of the equation, massively outweighed by having parents with connections to the industry.

I think it's really admirable if you can just play for yourself again. It feels like a riddle I have to solve, to be able to get back to doing that, like I did when I was a teenager alone in my room.

Hey first off thanks for sharing your thoughts :)

To answer your question, there are obviously far more factors at work than just 1. being a competent musician, and 2. being a confident performer. There are outsider artists whose music finds the big time whether they like it or not, for example, and beyond that there's also so many layers of masking and what people are able to be candid about which means maybe they're great live performers but they hate talking to fans at gigs, or maybe what we don't see is that artists who appear super confident are actually torturing themselves greatly and it takes an enormous toll on their wellbeing to be able to perform or be "on". That sounds like a minefield to even approach let alone navigate and personally for the most part I feel comfortable with not having to force myself to integrate with that on any level.

It sounds like a big part of why you're struggling is because you feel robbed of an opportunity because of your neurodivergence. If that's the case then I'd suggest trying to see the positives in making art just for yourself - it's not a rut and there are plenty of ways to challenge yourself which don't require any external influence. Also as someone heavily on the spectrum myself I am purely grateful for my own brand of creativity as an extension of my unconventional brain. This alone makes me feel special.

That being said, my own stance here is quite simply a result of "ah fuck it who cares". I tried but that does not mean I failed, I just found a different path. I'm approaching 40 and although I don't believe in age restrictions I do wonder sometimes what I would even do with success if I were to stumble into it. It would probably overwhelm me, and although I live in a tiny flat where I don't have room to play my electronic drumkit and I'm restricted to making music whenever the rare mood takes me (and when I'm alone, i.e. my wife isn't home) I am increasingly comfortable with this cosy existence. Art does not have to result in any wider acclaim than your own satisfaction. You sometimes hear people say "if just one person likes it then I'll be happy" - well so what if that one person is yourself?

[dontpaintyourteeth]

I have the same philosophy with my chaturbate cam shows 👍

[The Mollusk]

[Icehaven]

Sorry I can't be arsed wading through every line of every post here because my time is valuable too so it might have already been said but surely being able to simply stick your art on the internet and make it accessible to anyone anywhere has had an effect on whether or not people create it just for the sake of it/for themselves or not. Years ago if you wanted to try and get an audience you had to play gigs and get your music recorded on physical media/get an art exhibition/publish a hard copy of your book etc. so a lot of artists would create while not necessarily assuming that would be possible, but now that's not an issue. Not that having that ease of distribution means you'll get attention of course, in fact it might be even harder as you're going up against thousands of others doing the same thing in the same way, but simply being able to must have an effect. I wrote what would probably be called fanfic now when I was in my teens, but I wrote it on an old word processor with no intention of it ever being seen by another human being. If I was writing it now I'd probably want to put it online somewhere and that would inevitably influence what I wrote. 

A few posters here have said they used to just create art for themselves, but was that influenced by the fact that it was harder to make it accessible to others, and now it's easy to do that has it influenced/changed how and what you do?

[Paul Calf]

To be fair I think when people invoke UBI they're also invoking a programme in which there are also at least some universal basic services (transport, healthcare, energy etc).

I agree with you in that in theory it's just some monopoly money to be entered into the rotten system so that it can be sustained rather than reformed, but then it's also closest to what we might end up with in another moment of ruling class crisis if they finally realise that berserk libertarianism doesn't really save them.

It's also the last thing they'll try after they've failed to achieve total control of everything by attempting to buy millions of people who want to stop them and killing the ones who don't sell.

History rhymes.

[Mr_Simnock]

in fact it might be even harder as you're going up against thousands of others doing the same thing in the same way

What it does is show the creator, far more often than not, that their work really isn't that interesting or original and not worth much of anyone else's time to experience it. I remember when I first started to look at photography sites like zoomr and flikr and realising that 99.9% of them had such little imagination basically taking almost the same photo's over and over.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Sorry I can't be arsed wading through every line of every post here because my time is valuable too so it might have already been said but surely being able to simply stick your art on the internet and make it accessible to anyone anywhere has had an effect on whether or not people create it just for the sake of it/for themselves or not. Years ago if you wanted to try and get an audience you had to play gigs and get your music recorded on physical media/get an art exhibition/publish a hard copy of your book etc. so a lot of artists would create while not necessarily assuming that would be possible, but now that's not an issue. Not that having that ease of distribution means you'll get attention of course, in fact it might be even harder as you're going up against thousands of others doing the same thing in the same way, but simply being able to must have an effect. I wrote what would probably be called fanfic now when I was in my teens, but I wrote it on an old word processor with no intention of it ever being seen by another human being. If I was writing it now I'd probably want to put it online somewhere and that would inevitably influence what I wrote. 

A few posters here have said they used to just create art for themselves, but was that influenced by the fact that it was harder to make it accessible to others, and now it's easy to do that has it influenced/changed how and what you do?

It's a double edged sword because it is a lot easier to make/put out music and other art, but as you say it also means it's a lot easier to get lost in all the noise. And obviously there's much less quality control. I guess this is where playing live sets people apart but as has been mentioned that can be a major hassle for the expense and time, and just getting gigs. I had a band in Florida and we rehearsed twice a week for months, managed to get about 4 gigs in the time we were together, paid for with beer tokens and playing in front of a small crowd who couldn't care less. That was 15 years ago so it's probably even worse now.

There are about 4 million songs released every year, and about 100,000 albums. You could make the most objectively great album/song but it could still be lost amongst all the other stuff out there. There's not the value of having made a song or album that there used to be because pretty much anyone can do it. And add to that people's attention spans being much lower.

But, if you love making music you'll probably still do it. I just do it for the enjoyment, the same reason as when I picked up a guitar when I was 16.

[Icehaven]

It's a double edged sword because it is a lot easier to make/put out music and other art, but as you say it also means it's a lot easier to get lost in all the noise. And obviously there's much less quality control. I guess this is where playing live sets people apart but as has been mentioned that can be a major hassle for the expense and time, and just getting gigs. I had a band in Florida and we rehearsed twice a week for months, managed to get about 4 gigs in the time we were together, paid for with beer tokens and playing in front of a small crowd who couldn't care less. That was 15 years ago so it's probably even worse now.

Yep similarly when I was in bands in the late 90s we just did a few pub gigs and maybe recorded some stuff on a four track, largely for posterity rather than any thoughts of ever releasing proper recordings. With bands I've been in over the last 10 years we've made reasonably decent quality recordings either by ourselves or paying for studio time and always with a view to putting them online, not for money, but definitely in the hopes someone out there will listen to them.

But, if you love making music you'll probably still do it. I just do it for the enjoyment, the same reason as when I picked up a guitar when I was 16.

Agree entirely but now even if simple enjoyment is the main/only motivation a lot of people would still think "May as well stick it up on the internet as well, why not?"* which is also the point where some people would take the next step to "...and if anyone wants it they can pay for it."


*I'll tell you why not though, we auditioned a singer a few years ago who had made videos of herself singing, she said mainly to see what she sounded like on recordings, but she'd also uploaded them to Youtube. They were terrible. She didn't actually have a bad voice but was out of tune because she couldn't hear herself properly during the recording, but the concept of making these videos purely for her own development and not sharing them somehow didn't seem to have occurred to her.

[Fonz]

A

[Dex Sawash]

Charity shop here has loads of pianos $10 free delivery. I reckon they must charge $200 to pick one up.

[greenman]

Sorry I can't be arsed wading through every line of every post here because my time is valuable too so it might have already been said but surely being able to simply stick your art on the internet and make it accessible to anyone anywhere has had an effect on whether or not people create it just for the sake of it/for themselves or not. Years ago if you wanted to try and get an audience you had to play gigs and get your music recorded on physical media/get an art exhibition/publish a hard copy of your book etc. so a lot of artists would create while not necessarily assuming that would be possible, but now that's not an issue. Not that having that ease of distribution means you'll get attention of course, in fact it might be even harder as you're going up against thousands of others doing the same thing in the same way, but simply being able to must have an effect. I wrote what would probably be called fanfic now when I was in my teens, but I wrote it on an old word processor with no intention of it ever being seen by another human being. If I was writing it now I'd probably want to put it online somewhere and that would inevitably influence what I wrote. 

A few posters here have said they used to just create art for themselves, but was that influenced by the fact that it was harder to make it accessible to others, and now it's easy to do that has it influenced/changed how and what you do?

To be honest I think in my experience with photography this has actually tended to result in a choice between selling your work and focusing on acclaim. When your selling unless you become very well known most of the time will be spent going after a relatively small number of customers who will often be less overt in their praise to the degree I know its a bad sign if someone starts praising me. On the other hand you could focus on "getting your work out there" on the net, probably get far more praise but not likely any sales.

This forum now is pretty much the only place I bother posting stuff online, well I have an online store as well but its geared to reflected sales from people seeing my work in person but not wanting to buy at the time, never bothered to try and get lots of hits on it because I think its a waste of time/effort.

[TrenterPercenter]

Its been 24hrs I'll allow myself a bit of house cleaning.

But isn't capitalism also the main incentive for art? Create art, own art, sell art for ££.  Artists (well those not employed to be artists by companies) are in fact petite bourgeois in that they own the proceeds of their labour.

I firmly disagree. In fact, I think the people whose primary motivation for making art is to make $$$ are in a desperately tiny minority, not least because it's bloody hard to do.

Incentives are different from motivations (and especially when we start going into primary, secondary, tertiary motivations).  Incentives exist outside of people and act as, well an incentive.  Motivations exist inside a person and are the complicated reasons that people do things (motivations are neither static or absolutes from a behavioural science perspective).  That is why I say capitalism is an incentive for art, and why you say people whose primary motivation is art. I'm actually saying little more here than a Marxist view on superstructures.

Capital is an incentive for art, this is evidenced by the multi-billion dollar industry that exists around it, that fact that virtually all music, acting, gaming etc.. we experience in the world (note this is different from all art that exists in the world) generates capital and rewards its creators with capital, in fact the mainstream experience of un-renumerated art is the exception to the rule here and we have a whole system of copyright and royalties going on also - capitalism baby. 

It makes zero difference as an incentive as to whether people "make it or not". The incentive in X-factor is to gain a record contract, the fact that only 1 person can get this doesn't remove the incentive to 10s of thousands of others that have tried.  If you want a non-art explanation of this then consider the lottery as the fact hardly nobody wins doesn't remove the incentive of being a millionaire - here the motivation might not quite be to swim in big bucks like scrooge mcduck but to not have to work, to pay grandads care, to see the world, to donate it to charity.....but the incentive is still the capital that allows you to do this

For the avoidance of doubt, that is an example attempting to illuminate an argument about incentives and motivations, not that winning the lottery is the same as creating art.  Once you clear that up, you can say but isn't art a pursuit in itself. I don't disagree with this I think artists are motivated by their art, it just that like virtually everyone else on the planet they would like to get paid for doing what they love (again what you do with that money is up to them).  A care worker might be motivated by compassion for others and we seemed to agree in this thread (though sometimes I wonder) think because of the challenges of that work it should be incentivised, we don't (well apart from Tories and other ghouls) think "a now that care workers have more money they are no longer motivated by caring for others" - this is an argument usually reserved for use against nurse/doctors/care workers etc.. striking for better pay and conditions. 

Our TV screens and general culture is not ubiquitously filled with blinged out care workers but it is with "artists".......the one's that made it, which is a mix of those that perhaps should have and shouldn't have dependent on your tastes - you can't just ignore that and purely focus on art that doesn't "make it" in an actual comprehensive critique (someone pointed this out hobbies vs art and this is reflected when someone becomes a "professional artist" which is just an artist that is getting paid for their work).  Of course you can make art for your own interests, and primary motivations and have no incentive of capital apparent, but as the OP outlined Ruck Rubin is already rich he got paid and so doesn't have that incentive anymore that is literally the controversy, the commentators are saying what some people have said here that they would like capital (UBI if you like) to allow them to create their art - I don't see in the example that anyone was making the argument that people cannot create art for their own pursuits (but if there was this argument I would be firmly in the group that thinks paid to play can be massively detrimental to things  - I posted a whole load of stuff on this prior around the DDN video on £££ rap culture with DMC and was told I was wrong to consider the interaction of capital and music = some negative cultural impacts).  This is part of the broader issue however and not just simply the question should someone create art they don't actual care for just to make rent - I thought it was interesting to go deeper here but maybe not.

Anyway TLDR: we are talking about different things.  I think art is a human quality not capitalistic invention it's just artists are no different from anyone else in that they live in capitalistic world - this actually just a Marxist critique invoking superstructures not a hit job on artists.

OFFS Trenter if a band is hired to play a gig at a venue and they show up and play the gig, they're entitled to be paid the going rate and said rate should cover their costs and then some. I didn't even read the rest of your long-winded shite, my father's a musician and his time is fucking valuable. He has a skill others don't.

Again I suspect because people love inventing and twisting things posters actually say I suspect you got this wrong.  Why do you think I'm asking GoldenTony why he.....like your da, didn't get paid the going rate and said rate should cover their costs and then some? he was losing money from his gigs and fact that this is counter to what we would expect I wanted to know why.  I've no idea how you can get to me suggesting he shouldn't be paid?? - I've literally been arguing the opposite and getting it in the neck for it (all I've said is I don't think this is any different for anyone else getting paid for "work").  My attempting to be humorous comment about "bowling" that was (I'll be charitable) misunderstood was exactly because if it was just for pleasure it was the same as any other hobby, which it wasn't, because it was actually for pleasure but also work, which should be paid for (hence the question and also the apology to GT for me focusing on the pleasure bit and not the work bit - would have been better if I said but this is work really isn't it, that gives you pleasure) and there is absolutely nothing wrong with expecting that in my opinion.

I'm oot (again) fair play to all those making art and getting paid for it or not - peace out homies.

[The Mollusk]

He's definitely out this time guys and won't be returning! Don't even bother replying to him! He's done!!

[Beagle 2]

I think everybody should create art all the time and have the time and space to do so as part of any functioning society - it's intrinsic to human happiness. There's more opportunity to do that, technologically, than ever before, but the value on art and artists has nosedived. Meanwhile, 'artists' are still othered - we still have this mindset that those with talent create art and those who don't shouldn't bother.

To me the issue is more about placing worth in creativity and encouraging everybody to pursue it, than it is exceptional artists not being able to sustain themselves by pursuing their chosen discipline any more. Obviously that is an issue, and there are always exceptionally gifted people, but I honestly believe that given the space and encouragement to do so, pretty much everybody could excel at something creative and make others happy by doing so.

One way of creating space and time for art to flourish is to ensure that artists are paid to dedicate their working life to it in case they eventually create something good enough to make themselves and other people a bunch of money - but I do think that is quite a weird way of rewarding and fostering human creativity, particular to a moment in history. £100 for a ticket to a gig a couple of times a year where this creative elite are paraded in front of people from town to town rather than music being part of our everyday lives, in our homes and communal spaces all the time, like it's supposed to be.   

[Mister Six]

Soz @TrenterPercenter, I'm definitely not reading all that if there's not going to be a continued discussion. Cheers, have a good one.

[ZoyzaSorris]

Jesus fucking Christ the man's a tit

[The F Bomb]

I just created some seriously abstract art after a night on the Guinness Nitro Surge and beef stew.

[FeederFan500]

LRB article entitled What Is Culture? that addresses how art/culture fits into society

I thought this was pretty interesting and covers many of the stuff covered in the thread. Clearly written from a left-wing perspective too, given it's out of context mention of a Gaza genocide. 3500 words though so not short.

[Mobbd]

he was saying the most freeing thing he learned to do as an artist was to stop creating by the supposed standards or demands of his audience and instead to create art simply for himself.

That way lies stone clearing.

Sorry, but you have to think of the audience. I see a lot of contemporary art; you can tell when artists have considered the audience (which doesn't mean pandering; they probably want to challenge or offend the audience) and the ones whose only real aim is to play artist.

When you don't think about the audience, you're making up-its-own-arse art that shouldn't have left the studio.

[Mr_Simnock]

That way lies stone clearing.

Sorry, but you have to think of the audience. I see a lot of contemporary art; you can tell when artists have considered the audience (which doesn't mean pandering; they probably want to challenge or offend the audience) and the ones whose only real aim is to play artist.

When you don't think about the audience, you're making up-its-own-arse art that shouldn't have left the studio.

Nah, you can say feck off to your 'audience'. Do you think Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque thought like that when they came up with Cubism?

[dontpaintyourteeth]

[Mobbd]

Nah, you can say feck off to your 'audience'. Do you think Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque thought like that when they came up with Cubism?

I do! They weren't just amusing themselves. They were part of a broader culture, aware of history and which buttons to press politically and aesthetically.

[Mr_Simnock]

oh lol on that last one

[Mobbd]

oh lol on that last one

What do you mean?

[Mister Six]

Surely Picasso is one of the archetypal audience-baiting pseduoceleb modern artists?

[Stoneage Dinosaurs]

Where would outsider art fit into this audience thing? I don't imagine Wesley Willis was catering his art with anyone particularly in mind, and all the better for it

[Goldentony]

When you don't think about the audience, you're making up-its-own-arse art that shouldn't have left the studio.

this is the worst sentence in the forums history

[Goldentony]

I didnt start this thread but please close it