Monetary compensation for Art - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aberkok · 09-22-2009, 05:57 PM

Artists are not inherently entitled to monetary compensation for their Art

Here's an interesting article. It sparked a heated discussion on my Facebook profile and I was wondering what you folks think about it. Keep in mind I don't agree with everything in there, but there are some interesting ideas. I especially liked the "squeegee kid" analogy.

Artists are not inherently entitled to monetary compensation for theirArt - Music Think Tank

Quote:

“Artists should be compensated for their art.” is a phrase that often comes up in discussions on copyright. It is assumed that a) Artists are inherently entitled to monetary compensation for their Art, and b) copyright is a mechanism for this compensation.

I challenge both assumptions.

Of course, what people actually say is usually “Artists should be compensated for their work”. Below I’m going to distinguish between Art and Work, because confusing the two is exactly the problem.

a) Artists are inherently entitled to monetary compensation for their work.

I agree that artists are entitled to payment FOR THEIR WORK.

WORK is labor exchanged for money. Employer and worker negotiate a fee, the labor is performed, and the worker is paid. Many artists are workers: they are waiters, baristas, truck drivers. They should be compensated for their work, and they are, which is why they work.

Some artists perform a kind of skilled labor for money. This type of pre-negotiated labor is called a commission. Commissioned work is work, and artists are compensated for it, which is why artists take commissions.

But artists are not inherently entitled to monetary compensation FOR THEIR ART.

Art is a gift. An artist creates Art (not to be confused with skilled labor) on their own initiative. An artist “labors” in service of their vision, their Muse, the Art itself. The Muse alone is the Artist’s employer. It’s debatable whether the Artist can negotiate with their Muse before performing the labor — I certainly try to — but like most labor, terms are dictated by necessity. Just as economic necessity forces many workers into hard labor for low wages on their employer’s terms, so does suffering force many Artists into labor on the Muse’s terms. But unlike corporations and human employers, the Muse turns out to always have the artist’s best interests at heart. I’d much rather serve the Muse than an employer; but the Muse doesn’t negotiate a moneyed wage. Monetary compensation is not part of the deal.

The Muse “pays” me in Life. “Do this,” she says, “and you will Live. Turn away, and at best you will only survive.” I do have a choice: I can make the Art, or not. I accept the Muse’s terms. I perform the labor, and receive my “payment”: Life.

ART is negotiated with the MUSE. The “payment” is LIFE.
WORK is negotiated with an EMPLOYER. The payment is MONEY.

If artists want to be paid in MONEY, they should negotiate a fee before performing their work. That is the proper condition for payment. Or they can create work with no pre-negotiated payment, without demanding payment after the fact. That’s fine too. But to then demand payment after voluntarily working on your own terms — that is extortion.

Consider the Squeegee Man. He wipes windshields unbidden, then demands payment. He did the work; does he “deserve to be compensated”? Most would say no; if we wanted our windshields cleaned, we would negotiate this service in advance.

If I decide to sit behind a desk, take calls, devise flawed business plans, and lie, do I DESERVE to be compensated like a bank CEO? No. The bank CEO’s work was pre-negotiated. He gets $25 million in salary and bonuses because that was the deal BEFORE he sat down at his desk and did the work.

Does the bank CEO deserve his compensation? Well, most people are questioning that right now. I’m surprised it’s taken a massive financial crisis for that to happen, but at least folks are asking.

Since we’ve been in a massive artistic crisis for decades, maybe people have given up on asking whether the top .5% of artists deserve their monetary compensation. If I sing and prance around on stage, am I entitled to $110 million a year? It’s the same work Madonna does, and that’s what she makes. But Madonna arranged to be paid in advance of the singing and prancing, and performed it as work.

And if artists deserve to be compensated, then how much do they deserve? Isn’t art priceless? How do you determine how much it’s worth?

We could let the market decide. That could work… IF WE GET RID OF MONOPOLIES. The Free Market only works without monopolies. Information monopolies like copyright destroy that system. I’m all for allowing the Free Market to function, but it can only function without copyright.

Indeed, Madonna is not compensated as an artist; she is reaping profits from her information monopoly — that is, the copyright that restricts her Art. So if Madonna is your model, you aren’t rooting for artists; you are rooting for monopolists. If your mechanism for “compensating” artists requires them to become monopolists and to grow and position their monopolies as monopolists do, then you are championing monopolies, not Art.

Art is not a commodity, it is a gift. If you want to produce a commodity, negotiate its worth in advance. Art is made on the initiative of the artist. Otherwise, it’s commissioned work, which obviously compensates the worker. But the the commissioner is often a corporation or investment group, who will expect a monopolist’s return on their investment. So the pro-copyright argument is simply in favor of maintaining the oligarchy whose elites happen to be the main patrons of art in our age. It’s like supporting monarchies because kings and queens patronize artists.

This may be hard to hear, but: many artists who claim they just want to eat and pay rent are lying (perhaps to themselves). Most artists don’t want a living wage — they want to win the lottery. Suggest to most filmmakers and musicians that “success” is about $75,000 a year, and they’ll turn up their noses. You call that a jackpot? They’re only in it for the millions, baby. If that means working a day job and remaining obscure, so be it. Millions need to be poor so that one can be rich; they’re willing to do their time being poor, so that one day they can be rich at the expense of others. Their turn will come, they think.

I suggest playing a different game entirely, because the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math. But those kinds of artists want to play the lottery more than they want their art to reach people.

I do not mean to suggest that all artists have this attitude. There are also those who would be quite happy with a living wage; this is good, because that’s a much more realistic expectation for even a very talented artist. The problem is that our copyright discourse is dominated by the lottery attitude, such that when people say “Artists should be paid for the work” what they really mean is “All Art should be monopolized, so that some Artists can have a tiny chance of maybe getting rich one day.”

The best way for art to “compete” in a “free market” is to flow freely. The Internet makes it easy for an artist to give their work to an audience. It also makes it easy for audiences to return the gift. Giving is quite different from paying or being extorted. Money given is different from money coerced. It is a free transaction.

Not everyone will like a particular work of art. I don’t think people who dislike a work should be obligated to pay for it. Certainly works that offend, nauseate, or bore me, don’t inspire me to support their creators. But works that move and inspire me also move me to support their creators. I am touched by the Artist’s love, and want to offer something in return. Money is an obvious choice: the Artist can almost certainly use it. But it’s not always the right choice. I’m moved by many Beatles tunes, but I’m not inspired to send a check to Paul McCartney. He doesn’t need the money (not to mention he’s a big time monopolist). However, money is almost always an appropriate gift for a non-rich (read: typical) artist. It will be appreciated, and it’s not so personal as to be disturbing or threatening.

The Internet makes it very easy for fans to voluntarily send money to artists.

It’s really simple. Art competes with other art on the basis of quality. The Internet allows it to spread, to reach as many people as possible. Those who enjoy it have an easy mechanism to give back to the Artist if they are so moved. Not everyone will be so moved, nor should they be. Not everyone has to like everything. Not everything can touch us.

In conclusion:

Artists are NOT inherently entitled to monetary compensation for their Art. However we as a society can decide to support the Arts. The problem with this is that 95% of the Arts sucks. Most of us don’t want to be supporting artists that suck, nor allowing government committees to determine what is and is not worthy of support. My NYSCA grant rejection and its attendant comments have taught me never to trust government arts agencies. I’ll gladly accept funds from them, but I’m acutely aware that they aren’t reliably competent to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The best way society can support the Arts is to allow Art to spread, and to continue to encourage giving money to artists. That seems pretty natural to most people anyway, and it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s freedom.

Oh yeah and... anyone want to help me out with the "hide function?"

fresnelly · 09-22-2009, 06:42 PM

What, did an artist punch this guy in the face or something?

I wonder what inspired him to write this piece. 95% of art sucks?

This sounds more like a broad rant about government spending than anything else.

Everyone who calls himself an artist isn't being automatically handed money so I don't see what the big deal is. Obviously there is going to be disagreement as to whether public funds should support one project or another and no, arms length committees aren't always going to make pleasing choices, but what should we do? Completely abandon all subsidies?

I think that's cutting off one's nose to spite the face. Or throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Baraka_Guru · 09-22-2009, 08:14 PM

First, the hide function is not necessary, nor recommended, for articles of reasonable length quoted in the OP.

Second, unless I'm missing something, this guy doesn't understand basic business concepts.

An artist should be paid for both their work and their art, with two assumptions:

The artist has an agreement that indicates he or she will be paid for the time and other resources required to create the art. (Work)
The artist holds copyright or otherwise owns the rights--whether fully or in part--to the tangible or intangible manifestation or subsequent reproductions thereof. (Art)

It really is as simple as that.

This is how many businesses operate. Receiving compensation for a service performed is not new. Neither is receiving royalties or fees under licensing agreements. This doesn't only happen in the arts. Look around. These days, it's happening everywhere.

So, basically, an artist should receive some form compensation for their art if they have copyright (or some other agreement with a publisher, promoter, distributor, etc.) and the artwork is used in a commercial capacity.

See? Simple.

If I owned a company here in Canada that manufactured widgets, and a Chinese company expressed interest in making the same widgets available in the Chinese market, I could license out the brand, designs, and manufacturing process for a fee. For example, I could stipulate that 10% of the revenues from each unit is to be paid to my company as a part of the licensing arrangement.

This would be my company being compensated for what it had the rights to: a brand, design, and manufacturing process. This is how the "products and services" in the arts should work.

It all comes down to whether or not the artist remains the proprietor or part owner of the artwork.

Charlatan · 09-22-2009, 08:33 PM

The issue here stems, as I see it, from the fact that most art falls into the category of intellectual property. In other words, it isn't usually something as tangible as a manufactured good. We are talking about ideas, concepts, things that can be digitally reproduced with little difference from the original.

An artist should be compensated for both their art and their work.

Most of the payment for art (as opposed to work) has been managed through the licensing of copyright. If you wish to play a song on your radio station, you pay a license fee. If you want to air a television program on your channel, you pay a license fee. When you purchase a CD of music or a DVD of a film, you are in effect, playing a license fee (though we don't really call it that) to play that music under certain conditions. For example you are not permitted to do public performances of the CD or the DVD. They are mean for personal use.

The issue is that as our world has become increasingly digitized, it has become increasingly easy to break copyright. The easier it has become, the more that people have viewed this breaking of copyright as a victimless crime.

The knee-jerk reaction of the industry has been to clamp down on those that break copyright (filesharers, mashup artists, etc.). In the past, a lot of this was covered under fair use agreements or through hidden payments on blank media (cassette tapes carry an additional charge that is dispersed via Collection Societies to various licensees -- i.e. artists). It has been suggested that perhaps iPods should also carry this additional charge.

Regardless, it's my opinion that copyright is damaged or at least it is being used as a blunt instrument when something more surgical is required. There have been some attempts such as Creative Commons that offer one way forward. It will be interesting to see where things go over the next few years. There is a lot at stake over this issue.

09-22-2009, 06:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto Blog Entries: 38	What, did an artist punch this guy in the face or something? I wonder what inspired him to write this piece. 95% of art sucks? This sounds more like a broad rant about government spending than anything else. Everyone who calls himself an artist isn't being automatically handed money so I don't see what the big deal is. Obviously there is going to be disagreement as to whether public funds should support one project or another and no, arms length committees aren't always going to make pleasing choices, but what should we do? Completely abandon all subsidies? I think that's cutting off one's nose to spite the face. Or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. __________________ ...or as I like to affectionally call it: a "Mouth Hug". - Ron White

09-22-2009, 08:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru Dracologist Super Moderator Location: Toronto, Canada Blog Entries: 89	First, the hide function is not necessary, nor recommended, for articles of reasonable length quoted in the OP. Second, unless I'm missing something, this guy doesn't understand basic business concepts. An artist should be paid for both their work and their art, with two assumptions: The artist has an agreement that indicates he or she will be paid for the time and other resources required to create the art. (Work) The artist holds copyright or otherwise owns the rights--whether fully or in part--to the tangible or intangible manifestation or subsequent reproductions thereof. (Art) It really is as simple as that. This is how many businesses operate. Receiving compensation for a service performed is not new. Neither is receiving royalties or fees under licensing agreements. This doesn't only happen in the arts. Look around. These days, it's happening everywhere. So, basically, an artist should receive some form compensation for their art if they have copyright (or some other agreement with a publisher, promoter, distributor, etc.) and the artwork is used in a commercial capacity. See? Simple. If I owned a company here in Canada that manufactured widgets, and a Chinese company expressed interest in making the same widgets available in the Chinese market, I could license out the brand, designs, and manufacturing process for a fee. For example, I could stipulate that 10% of the revenues from each unit is to be paid to my company as a part of the licensing arrangement. This would be my company being compensated for what it had the rights to: a brand, design, and manufacturing process. This is how the "products and services" in the arts should work. It all comes down to whether or not the artist remains the proprietor or part owner of the artwork. __________________ Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —"Burnt Norton," Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-22-2009 at 08:19 PM..

09-22-2009, 08:33 PM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Bringing a Chill to the Tropics Moderator Location: Lion City Blog Entries: 35	The issue here stems, as I see it, from the fact that most art falls into the category of intellectual property. In other words, it isn't usually something as tangible as a manufactured good. We are talking about ideas, concepts, things that can be digitally reproduced with little difference from the original. An artist should be compensated for both their art and their work. Most of the payment for art (as opposed to work) has been managed through the licensing of copyright. If you wish to play a song on your radio station, you pay a license fee. If you want to air a television program on your channel, you pay a license fee. When you purchase a CD of music or a DVD of a film, you are in effect, playing a license fee (though we don't really call it that) to play that music under certain conditions. For example you are not permitted to do public performances of the CD or the DVD. They are mean for personal use. The issue is that as our world has become increasingly digitized, it has become increasingly easy to break copyright. The easier it has become, the more that people have viewed this breaking of copyright as a victimless crime. The knee-jerk reaction of the industry has been to clamp down on those that break copyright (filesharers, mashup artists, etc.). In the past, a lot of this was covered under fair use agreements or through hidden payments on blank media (cassette tapes carry an additional charge that is dispersed via Collection Societies to various licensees -- i.e. artists). It has been suggested that perhaps iPods should also carry this additional charge. Regardless, it's my opinion that copyright is damaged or at least it is being used as a blunt instrument when something more surgical is required. There have been some attempts such as Creative Commons that offer one way forward. It will be interesting to see where things go over the next few years. There is a lot at stake over this issue. __________________ “Under a separation of state and economics, especially with laissez-faire capitalism [Free Trade], the state no longer has a role to play in protecting the people and assuring their happiness. Laissez-faire means capitalism is outside the regulatory control of the state and that the people are entirely at the mercy of the capitalists.” – Thomas Jefferson