silverkitty wrote:Evnissyen wrote:I still don't see how any artist can honestly say they believe in free art in a Capitalist society, although I've met too many who do . . .
two words: donations, and patronage.
the first is shaky at best, and the second hasn't been practiced in a few hundred years, but those are probably the models of rent payment they have in mind.
Yeah . . . while donations at least allow people to decide, based on their finances, whether or not they want to pay for art . . . I do not believe that it can work, generally speaking, as a means of
reliable funding. I suspect that shareware developers who
don't encourage people to buy their products by limiting accessibility do not receive enough money to pay for their time expense... . I
do like the shareware approach, and when I download and test out software, and it restricts me from certain functions (an inability to save files is a good approach, I feel) but still gives me enough access to make an informed decision about its capabilities: if I like it I'll pay for it. If I like it and it's free: I
won't pay for it. I won't donate. I'm not even sure that if I were wealthy then I would do so... and I suspect that's the case for the good majority of the middle and upper classes as well . . . and that's a serious problem.
What it comes down to there is that you're relying on people's goodwill, which is not a reliable approach at all. I guess since there are people who put out free software then
maybe it works to a certain modest extent . . . I don't know . . . but I suspect what's the case there is that these people don't mind sacrificing their time and effort of the benefit of the masses . . . which is noble and fine and admirable, but... I still feel that artists and developers should be paid fairly for their efforts. What if they get in a financial bind later on? Are they going to regret their decision? Everyone needs security, after all . . . unless their born into money, I suppose.
As for patronage: Yeah, this never works. Throughout history there have always been far too few wealthy patrons to go around.
If we're going the patronage system: we'd have to go back to talking about Communism... or at least to establish an enormous system where the government pays artists to be artists . . . which would -- let's face it -- cost a brutally excessive amount of money, and probably face abuse. (I'm an artist myself (trained painter (and,
yes, I can draw,
ahem) as well as a writer, so I, like every other artist on these forums, can attest to the fact that our human nature is no different from anyone else's human nature. We take what we can get. When we see an advantage we take it. We all need to survive, and if we're surviving and making a little extra:
we want things. It's only natural.)
So you all know: Although I'm very liberal and favor a strong central government that takes care of its people: I'm also opposed to government support of the Arts. This might seem ironic considering my chosen career path, but personally: I don't feel that the Arts falls into a category of one of those things that the Government should be responsible for. If the Government's purpose is to ensure the
safety, health and well-being of its people: where do the Arts apply? The Arts enrich the mind and senses; they do not make a person healthier or safer.
However . . . at the risk of seeming to go back on my dismissal of donations (I'll explain in a moment why it doesn't): I've been toying with an idea for a while, and if I were wealthy and a celebrity I would actually try to implement it. Unfortunately I'm neither and never will be; however: my idea is this: That a broad, nationwide artist's fund be established, like any organization who relies on donations to run . . . an independent fund that is therefore free of the tides of political shifts . . . an independent fund which, by spreading the idea of the importance of Arts funding, helps establish a greater sense of an American artistic culture. It would be nice, also, if such a fund were focused more strongly toward emerging artists and artists of financial need . . . to weigh financial need equally with merit (something that the state-funded councils do not do.)
Why this is different: this would be a broad-based, well-established national fund, not simply every artist in the nation asking for individual donations to fund their life-work. And on that last note: It
doesn't fund the artists' actual
career and therefore permit 'free art'. Like every state Cultural Council's grants it simply helps artists to manage their finances and time, at a specific moment, thereby facilitating their ability to create, at that specific moment. The amount they get is one-time only, and of such a small amount, effectively and generally speaking, that it cannot at all 'replace' the need for financial earnings. The artist
must still charge for his or her art, or suffer the consequences.
Any thoughts on any of this?
(btw: Jedi-Learner: I like your new avatar . . . better than the previous.)
