Comments on: Art and Money

By: Molly

Molly — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:58:51 +0000

Coffee refills at Starbucks actually CAN be free . Just buy a gift card for yourself and register it, then reload it when need be. You get free syrups and soy milk too! (YAY)
Just thought i’d put that out there, since this seems like a community of fellow free loving people.

Awesome blog, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts Chris!

By: Andrea

Andrea — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:31:57 +0000

Very late to this party, but if you haven’t read Margaret Atwood’s “Negotiating with the Dead” I think you’d like it. It’s her book on writing, and it has a section on the odd relationship between art and commerce:

“I can still hear the sneer in the tone of the Parisian intellectual who asked me, ‘Is it true you write the bestsellers?’ ‘Not on purpose,’ I replied somewhat coyly. Also somewhat defensively, for I knew tehse equations as well as he did, and was thoroughly acquainted with both kinds of snobbery: that which ascribes value to a book because it makes lots of money, and that which ascribes value to a book because it doesn’t.”

By: Cecilia Steinberg

Cecilia Steinberg — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:38:33 +0000

A little late on the bandwagon, but I do want to clarify the popupar misconception that “wealth has been sullied by the church, who associated money as the root of all evil”. (Anne M)
It is “…THE LOVE OF money” that is considered a “root of all kinds of evil”. (2 Tim 6:10). And further goes on to say : “Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” (NIV) Greed, in other words, has in certain instances caused people pain , (according to the writer Paul)
I do agree with that.
And I agree that artists should be able to earn a guilt-free living from their art.

(Maybe this Bible passage has been twisted by the church itself, so Anne may be right, but its good to know how it stands in the source!)

new to your blog, referred from Seth Godin’s blog. Love it! thanks Chris!

Cecilia

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:34:53 +0000

The relationship between art and money is a pretty complex beast. One thought is that art has intrinsic value and is itself an end, not just a means to an end. Art (specifically music) to me is more than something to be manufactured, marketed, and consumed. I guess it’s a question of perspective. What is the purpose of your art? I am creative because creativity is a part of who I am. It’s more important to me to be creative, and to affect people’s lives, and to contribute to the community than to get rich and famous and to score groupies. Still, there is money involved and we can’t ignore that. I try to see it as the community supporting my art. Still, getting paid for gigs and recordings is one thing, but customizing your music for maximum sales potential is something else entirely. Part of what makes art interesting is authenticity. When you bring commerce into it, people start to question your motives. “Is this art really a reflection of the artist, or are they just trying to sell me something?” Art made for commercial purposes is very seldom interesting. On the inverse, art made from desperation is usually the most inspiring. Maybe it’s true – “when they were nobodies they were awesome, but now they suck.” The artist got rich and lazy and just started making uninspired art, formulated to sell. There is also the question of control. Once a musician signs a record deal with a major label, their rights go out the window. Their creative decisions are now dictated by a faceless international corporation. This happens all the time, even at an independent level. Many bands and musicians have voluntarily chosen to avoid record labels for this very reason. The bottom line is, you need to determine what success means to you. It’s possible to make the art you want the way you want and to even make a living at it, without selling your soul, with your integrity in tact, and with honest motives.

By: Phil Goss

Phil Goss — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:38:18 +0000

I’m a little bit conflicted about this. I’m a believer in capitalism and all of the good things that it brings. I have no problem with artists making money. That being said, I wish somehow we weren’t so inundated with advertising. Right now I’m thinking about all the sports stadiums and events that are named after whatever corporation puts up the most money. “Soldier Field” or “The Rose Bowl” sounds so much better than “3Com Park” or “The Tostitos Fiesta Bowl”. Rides at Disneyland have corporate sponsorship for Christ’s sake! Is that really necesary? If I pay $80+ to get into an amusement park, why do I have to read a billboard for FedEx while I’m standing in line for 2 hours to watch Space Mountain? They’re putting adds on the little divider stick thingies at the check out stand at the grocery store. I wonder how much of this advertising really gets through? I think pretty much all of it is getting tuned out.

Anyway… about artists getting paid. I’m sure somebody already brought it up, but I think the real question is whether or not the artists integrity is compromised by trying to cater to a larger audience for the purpose of making more money. Like I said before – I’m all for capitalism, but if you don’t want anybody to question your integrity I guess you have to do it for free. Art supplies cost money and artists have to eat. Catch 22.

Best thing to do as an artist is to “sell out” immediately, so nobody could can accuse you of changing your style to get paid $$$$$$

By: James Marwood

James Marwood — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:52:50 +0000

“Thou shall not stop liking a band just because they have become popular”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoN6XfyQsr4

By: Steve Chambers

Steve Chambers — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:54:05 +0000

People have a right to be paid for their time, trouble and knowledge. For a long time I felt that artists and other creative people should share their creativity for free, but that idea is wrong. People need to be compensated for the time and effort they have expended in learning and mastering their craft. Too many people, especially those less talented, less successful and less ambitious, believe that they should be given something for nothing. Unfortunately they are also the most vocal when it comes to complaining and demanding.

If you’re good people will pay you for the privilege of experiencing your art and your talent. Being able to support yourself, even at a higher living standard than others believe you “should” have, is your right and duty. Your quote by Bill Cosby was right on, you can’t please everyone, nor should you try. Stay true to yourself and demand to be paid for what you are worth.

By: Alex Fayle

Alex Fayle — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:56:11 +0000

I write because I love writing, but I’m also in it for the money (there’s money in fiction?). My blog for the past two years has been a hobby and this year I’m monetizing it, not with ads, but with what you’re doing Chris – selling my own writing.

For me, as long as the blogger stays true to themselves and works with integrity, then I think advertising or whatever other sort of monetization scheme is great – after all, why not make money from all the work we put into our blogs?

By: Anne M.

Anne M. — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:10:39 +0000

I have a dear friend who is an Artist. She made over 20 very large paintings and multimedia work over 20 years ago, then started a relationship with alcohol and never worked again. At 75, she sells the paintings now for $8,000 and up, and barely makes enough to cover her living expenses.

I have been a technical marketing representative for software companies for the last 25 years, so I come from an environment where the art is made with the understanding that it will be subjected to commercial forces, and the most popular titles will survive, while others will not remain in the marketplace.

She flatly denied that the work our programmers and graphical artists was doing was “art” because it wasn’t “pure.” She had become so enamored with her starving artist identity that she insisted that the term “Art” was reserved only for those individual pieces that transcended all human condition. She insisted that Thomas Kincaid, whose work is loved by millions of people, was not an artist because his work was popular, and because he made many copies, diluting its impact as an art form.

By her definition, even Van Gogh’s “pure” art has been massively diluted by being made into posters, post cards, greeting cards, t-shirts, etc. Somehow, popularity sullies the work in her eyes.

I don’t think she was very popular in high school.

However, I think the opposite is true: once art is disseminated widely and becomes part of a society’s identity, its impact has been massively magnified, and the artist has been able to touch and move many people. You can change the world with your point of view if your art has a broader reach than the hundreds who may pass by it hanging on a museum wall in an ancient European city.

I think wealth has been sullied by the church, who associated money as the root of all evil, and demanded that people fork it over to the church to keep their souls clean.

However, I don’t think paying rent on time and fulfilling one’s debt obligations is dirty, and I don’t think saving for one’s retirement is dirty. And I don’t think money is dirty unless it is used to fuel the evil deeds of an evil person, or to feed the addictions of tortured souls. Then, it’s not the money itself that is dirty. Just as the chain saw can be used to clear the yard of dangerous dead trees that could fall on one’s home, in the wrong hands such a powerful tool can be an instrument of massacre. Blame the hands, not the tool.

By: Janice Cartier

Janice Cartier — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:30:59 +0000

Robyn,
I like your tee shirt too.