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

[The Mollusk]

Hell yeah provocative title. WOUND UP are you, artists?

Alright hear me out. The other day I got a suggested post of an interview with Rick Rubin talking about making music or whatever he does, turning the volume up loads and ruining albums. In the video 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. I love torturing myself by reading comments sections I know will be chock full of putrid slime, so in I went, and the top rated comments were from people complaining that this was such a toxic thing to say from a privileged rich guy who can no longer relate to the struggle of an artist trying to make money.

I don't really care for Rick Rubin (mostly think he's a bit of a twat) but I do agree with what he's said here. What's more I find those hugely upvoted negative responses to be very typical of the world we live in now, and how the corroded collective attention span leads people to genuinely believe instant gratification and monetary value are the highest rewards for creativity.

I suffer greatly from rejection sensitive dysphoria and for many years I would continuously become deeply upset when any art I created and posted on social media didn't garner a ton of likes and praise from my friends. I started Facebook and Instagram pages for my music and illustrations which ultimately went nowhere and I became convinced that this meant I had failed as an artist. I have thankfully now reached a point where admittedly my artistic output had greatly slowed but when I do create something I just do it for fun, and the highest reward I take from this is that I was able to drag myself off the sofa and express myself in a way that made me, and me alone, happy.

I'm not saying this is for everyone. I know artists are struggling now more than ever with so many grant/funding cuts, independent venues being choked out and the dizzying maelstrom of social media meaning absolutely everyone is vying for attention and success. But if it was black and white and I was forced to choose a side between "all artists should be fighting tooth and nail for their own shot at the big time" and "all artists should make what they want on their own terms, and if they make good money off it then that's a bonus" I would have to go for the latter.

We're closer now than ever before to a point where there's no truly "new" artistic ideas (and the shitshow of AI creating things based on what's already been done) but that doesn't mean we should stop letting whatever falls out of our brains onto the canvas being left there unaltered, uncompromised, with zero imposition or expectation from the outside world. We remain individuals and we should aspire to create as such.

Yeah?

[bgmnts]

Just get a proper job innit

[Shaxberd]

I know it's glib to say the problem is capitalism, but the problem is capitalism. We should be free to make art on our own terms but the need to make a living forces most of us to give up because we don't have the time, a small minority to desperately scrape and strive for recognition (usually compromising their vision in the process), and a blessed few get fame and fortune with all its pros and cons. The machine warps everything to fit its demands.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Struggling artists probably do make the most interesting art but nobody struggling to live will have time to make art which is why we haven't seen much brilliance since dole got restricted in this essay I will

[Goldentony]

funny that Rick Rubin considers himself an at all essential part in the creation of anything he's put his dog faced shithead name to

[FeederFan500]

When are we saying capitalism started? You were basically reliant on wealthy aristocrats commissioning stuff in the past if you wanted to make a living, people at least have the choice of doing their own stuff for no monetary reward now, or chasing the money.*

That and you were pretty fucked if you didn't grow up in a wealthy family to send you to the right schools of art.

*It would be great if everyone had the leisure time and disposable income to devote more time to it, the interests of well off pensioners suggests to me that it will be like the Third Programme on BBC Radio where it turns out most people have no interest in it.

[jamiefairlie]

It's tricksy this isn't it? Before human beings collected into large groups we had all the freedom to do what we wanted but tended to die early through disease, starvation or being eaten.

To alleviate that we started to collectivise and that requires each person to trade their freedom for the benefits of being in a group but that entails bringing something of value to the group, you need to contribute.

Fast forward to today and for better or worse we reward contribution with money. Now that system is all kinds of broken (bankers get more than nurses of farmers) but it is the defacto way our society is organized.

Artists are no different, they are rewarded based on the same flawed criteria as everyone else. You can make a case for them to be given a higher status but that case would have to accepted by the other members of our collective.

[TrenterPercenter]

I know it's glib to say the problem is capitalism, but the problem is capitalism. We should be free to make art on our own terms but the need to make a living forces most of us to give up because we don't have the time, a small minority to desperately scrape and strive for recognition (usually compromising their vision in the process), and a blessed few get fame and fortune with all its pros and cons. The machine warps everything to fit its demands.

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 don't really get this as if you just want to make art but not receive attention, money, kudos from art then this is easy enough, Capitalism doesn't stop me playing the piano in the evening, if I could make money from playing the piano however it would be me engaging with Capitalism surely.

Also literally everyone needs to make a living? Are we suggesting art is worth more than other forms of work?

[Goldentony]

But isn't capitalism also the main incentive for art?

if you're a cunt or bad at it

[bgmnts]

The pressures and subjugation of all human experiences and endeavours to the power of the MARKET surely applies to art as well?

Probably some shit about galleries and museums and Foucault or whatever that's above my head.

Capitalism is shite.

[Goldentony]

The pressures and subjugation of all human experiences and endeavours to the power of the MARKET surely applies to art as well?

was just saying this to the lads

[TrenterPercenter]

if you're a cunt or bad at it

What about the Cheeky Girls tho?

[The Culture Bunker]

Artists are no different, they are rewarded based on the same flawed criteria as everyone else. You can make a case for them to be given a higher status but that case would have to accepted by the other members of our collective.

Not sure this really is the case in the case of musicians, given the tiny amounts they receive from streaming, which is the main way people consume music these days. It doesn't work out too bad if you're an Adele or Taylor Swift, of course.

When I've said this to people in the past, often it's handwaved away with "well, they can tour" - which again is generally fine if you're playing to big crowds every night, less so when you're playing the pub-level circuit.

[Goldentony]

What about the Cheeky Girls tho?

conned and then maintained a living out of a load of money rich TV shitheads during a cultural zenith and then maintained that with hard, selfless work and also the Liberal Democrat Party Of The United Kingdom And Jersey, largely to be admired

[QDRPHNC]

Yes. I currently have two art projects on the go and with both I'm trying to feel my way through them by listening to myself and disregarding as much as possible notions of financial reward or how they will be received by my friends or anyone else. If they bring me wealth and a new career I will of course be very happy, but I can't imagine making any art I care about or have any interest in maintaining long term if wealth or a career is the goal. AT THE SAME TIME, I also make a living as a designer, which is not art but is at the very least creative, so it's likely that I am also somewhat spoiled by having that outlet.

[Pink Gregory]

really don't get the entitlement of the audience when it comes to recorded media

People do this thing where they identify themselves as fans and then you move along into a special category of consumer in which now your presence is somehow regarded as input?

It's always been the case that, provided that the record/disc works from manufacture, you aren't really guaranteed something that you're going to find value in, and isn't that the point of the subjectivity of art?  I mean at the height of the actual record industry the idea was that being signed is something of an indicator of quality, loads of exceptions apply and obviously A&R people were looking for sales rather than artistic merit, but the two often came together did they not?

[Video Game Fan 2000]

one hand: i have a disabling illness and time consuming learning difficulty (dyslexia) that means i probably should get some sort of help to complete my projects. lots of people whose opinions should count have said my work is good, im just an outsider and heterodox, etc. blah blah. i feel like if there were open bursaries for writers and academic assistance, id be entitled to both.

other hand: having had finanacial assistance in the past and been close to the process later on, i know that people would expect my work to be a certain way if i received it and the process of showing people the progress and being interviewed would change things majorly and have a negative influence. i wouldnt be so heterodox anymore. there is no way i could get funding without that funding have a negative impact on what i want to do. both in the critical/contrarian dimension of my research and the sincerity of my creative projects.

paradox of funding and support for the arts. i have turned down or refused to apply for things in the past which has been foolish but independence matters to me most of all. im now middle aged and have to look for stuff to help me more urgently. so compromise is inevitable.

[Zetetic]

I know artists are struggling now more than ever with so many grant/funding cuts

Is competing for grants often the actual alternative to competing for cash in the (supposed) marketplace?

At which point you're still talking about art being created to meet someone's idea of what's important, it's just that this no longer has to include (imagining) anyone actually wanting to engage with it.

Edit: A pleasing coincidence with VGF2k's post, I think?

[Video Game Fan 2000]

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.

art, philosophy and religion all predate markets

its amazing people will naturalise capital/accumulation and not creative behaviours. the notion of markets has cannibalised all other understandings of intersubjectivity

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Edit: A pleasing coincidence with VGF2k's post, I think?

i believe in support for the arts and humanities (although i hate that rubric) as much as i believe in universal healthcare and suffrage, but having been through several educational sausage grinders and found that 'academic doxa' is indeed a thing that exists, i discovered that support for the arts/humanities and support for the freedom and independence of artists, researchers and writers are two entirely seperate things, even if they're both ultimately best described as material support.

im not into socalled para-academics though, thats even worse. just gig economy with peace signs and pride flags. sign up to my patreon, ring the bell. another sort of competition, another market. ive noticed that a good way to get grants to say you despise state funded education and you intend produce work calling out all its flaws

[The Mollusk]

really don't get the entitlement of the audience when it comes to recorded media

People do this thing where they identify themselves as fans and then you move along into a special category of consumer in which now your presence is somehow regarded as input?

Until very recently when he finally submitted his entire catalogue to streaming platforms, John Zorn was receiving criticism from fAnS online who called him a luddite for not moving in that direction, as if one of the hardest working blokes in the history of music should be pointed and laughed at for going "actually lads I do believe I should earn more than pennies for the endless compositions I am belting out day after day and this record label I own and all of the physical media it distributes and the ceaseless time and effort I put into maintaining it."

Is competing for grants often the actual alternative to competing for cash in the (supposed) marketplace?

At which point you're still talking about art being created to meet someone's idea of what's important, it's just that this no longer has to include (imagining) anyone actually wanting to engage with it.

Edit: A pleasing coincidence with VGF2k's post, I think?

Mm, no, probably a bit of oversight on my part. Me saying "grants/funding" was more of a broad stroke in the line of programs which encourage groups/cultures of people who are underprivileged to create and express themselves solely for the good of being able to do so, not something incentivised towards an individual.

[Mr Vegetables]

The idea that commercial pressures will warp what you can and can't do with your art seems so obviously true I almost don't know what there is to discuss. It's one of the reasons I'd resist trying to actually make a living out of it, the other being that I couldn't because it's all pretty shit.

I don't know that it's even that privileged a position really? Like you can make your money waiting tables, then draw pictures of unhappy balloons to calm down afterwards. It's just a distinction between what you commodify in yourself in the end. Obviously it's miserable if you end up having to commodify something you don't want to

[popcorn]

On the one hand if people demand you give them art for free, then yes, I think you're well justified in telling them to get bent. But to expect that anyone should value your art in the first place (in any sense, let alone commercially) I think is demented. I also detect a correlation between people who complain about how they can't earn a living from their art and people who make extremely bad webcomics.

[superthunderstingcar]

But isn't capitalism also the main incentive for art?

<snip>

Also literally everyone needs to make a living?

An incentive for art? Yes. The main incentive for art? How then do you explain any artist who doesn't "sell out" (Stewart Lee, for instance)? There's a difference between art done as a hobby ("playing the piano in the evening"), art done to pay the bills, and "art" done to squeeze every last ££££ out of a trademarkable property (coughHarry Pottercough).

The latter brings me on to different measures of artistic success, which might explain different incentives. But you need more than one axis to measure this, because one of these is popularity measured in raw numbers (audience reach, number of downloads, viewing figures, size of venues played, whatever you want to call it depending on the art) that usually* corresponds to financial success, and the other is the far more subjective measure of quality or critical acclaim.

I would have thought that striving for the latter and achieving the former as a happy byproduct is what was intended by most 'true' artists who became successful, as the reverse (aiming to make as much money for yourself as possible and if your product happens to be critically successful as well then so much the better for the publicity machine) is a far more cynical approach.

I only do art** as a hobby, I do not need to earn my living from it, so what do I know? Fuck it, post.


* Obviously not always for the artist, since there is so much room for exploitation in our society.
** Yes I count painting Warhammer miniatures and writing a blog as art, fuck you all.

[popcorn]

An incentive for art? Yes. The main incentive for art? How then do you explain any artist who doesn't "sell out" (Stewart Lee, for instance)?

I'd go beyond that and ask how you explain the overwhelming majority of all creative acts ever carried out by anyone. How many people sit down with a musical instrument thinking "OK how can I monetise this"?

[ZoyzaSorris]

It's tricksy this isn't it? Before human beings collected into large groups we had all the freedom to do what we wanted but tended to die early through disease, starvation or being eaten.

To alleviate that we started to collectivise and that requires each person to trade their freedom for the benefits of being in a group but that entails bringing something of value to the group, you need to contribute.

Fast forward to today and for better or worse we reward contribution with money. Now that system is all kinds of broken (bankers get more than nurses of farmers) but it is the defacto way our society is organized.

Artists are no different, they are rewarded based on the same flawed criteria as everyone else. You can make a case for them to be given a higher status but that case would have to accepted by the other members of our collective.

Actually deaths from disease and starvation got a lot worse for most of the period we started collecting together in bigger groups. Dying from an injury or being eaten was more of an issue for pre-agricultural people but by and large the change was a very bad thing for most people, its hegemony driven purely by the ability of those societies being able to generate much higher population growth and thus outcompeting any alternative ways of life, as opposed to any improvement in quality of life. In the current time we have got used to a brief hiatus from mass deaths by disease and starvation, in the wealthier parts of the world at least, but it's not hard to see that being a brief blip in the history of urbanised humans.

[The F Bomb]

Good thread. My broad sentiment is that artists should create primarily for themselves and, perhaps, for their community. If some artists want to put a price on their creative enterprise, they enter a different realm where the market dictates whether they get paid. If they're not good enough or don't understand the market well enough, they will get paid appropriately.

I really enjoy photography in my free time. I've sold a number of prints on request but if I wanted to live off photography, I'd need to be better, more distinctive and vastly more engaged in marketing my work. Or, I'd need to enter a more commercial sector, such as weddings, family portraiture or explicitly commercial work. Being good at something and being paid for something are completely separate, in my mind.

If you choose to become a working artist, in any field, you'd better be extremely good or extremely commercial because nobody owes you nothing.

[FeederFan500]

I doubt Rowling was thinking about a theme park near Watford when she wrote The Philosopher's Stone tbh. It's your celebrities/James Patterson giving a few prompts to ghost writers and using their name to sell the book that is the most cynical cash grab.

With Rowling it's difficult to say for certain because her later stuff was written when HP had become huge (and then she/her publisher had to rely on her name to sell pseudonymous crime books) but I don't think she is the worst for capitalist distortion of art.

[The Mollusk]

Being good at something and being paid for something are completely separate, in my mind.

This leads me to another tangent which is just because something is consumed en masse (i.e. has a lot of likes/clicks) that doesn't make it better than anything else, it just means more people have seen it, likely because the creator paid for it to be boosted further into the public eye. Monetary value has zero impact on the actual quality of art (until it corrupts it), it just ensures a higher level of engagement. If you can afford to create and don't care about how many people engage with your work, you are free as a bird.

[Vodkafone]

But isn't capitalism also the main incentive for art?

Surely all the art created pre-capitalism means the answer is 'no'. Those neolithic people who trekked out to those remote caves on Lofoten in Norway to make art on the cave walls weren't planning on selling it on Etsy.

Ah but, you might say, now that capitalism is dominant, it has also become the main driver for creating art. But there is so much art that people create just for the pleasure of creating it - it's just not seen or heard by that many people.