dre Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Why? Because a vast part of our industry is art, and it employs millions of people. Whether it's 3d graphics for computer and video games, the movie industry, graphic design of commercial products, etc, all of that is art. Self-employment also doesn't mean someone who is just scraping by. Contractors are self-employed. Yup, and that site actually looks at those people "multi media artists", and they are paid a lot more than the average for artists as a group. 54K average or something like that. Pretty good. In any case "art" is more like a recreational activity than a trade. Take a game like hockey... theres a few thousand elite players around the world that make millions and millions per year. Then theres 10 or 20 thousand more players that made a decent income in all the various semi-pro and middle tier leagues. The vast majority of people who play however never make anything, and lots of them dont even care. Theres a decent book on the economy of art here... http://books.google.ca/books?id=DukoxJd3SZ0C&dq=why+are+artists+poor+the+exceptional+economy+of+the+arts&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=_rPyScGvG8KrjAflgsnKDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=why%20are%20artists%20poor%20the%20exceptional%20economy%20of%20the%20arts&f=false Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Yup, and that site actually looks at those people "multi media artists", and they are paid a lot more than the average for artists as a group. 54K average or something like that. Pretty good. In any case "art" is more like a recreational activity than a trade. Take a game like hockey... theres a few thousand elite players around the world that make millions and millions per year. Then theres 10 or 20 thousand more players that made a decent income in all the various semi-pro and middle tier leagues. The vast majority of people who play however never make anything, and lots of them dont even care. Theres a decent book on the economy of art here... http://books.google.ca/books?id=DukoxJd3SZ0C&dq=why+are+artists+poor+the+exceptional+economy+of+the+arts&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=_rPyScGvG8KrjAflgsnKDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=why%20are%20artists%20poor%20the%20exceptional%20economy%20of%20the%20arts&f=false The people who play hockey for fun and don't getting anything from it do it as a hobby. It's not their job. The same is true of people who dabble in art for fun. I do so myself, in fact (pencil drawing, fantasy/scifi writing, 3d graphics). But it's a hobby. There is nothing wrong with hobbies not being financially compensated in the capitalist system. In fact, most hobbies require a money expenditure, and are not a money source. I don't see anything at all wrong with this. It does not point out some flaw of the capitalist system as it relates to art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) The people who play hockey for fun and don't getting anything from it do it as a hobby. It's not their job. The same is true of people who dabble in art for fun. I do so myself, in fact (pencil drawing, fantasy/scifi writing, 3d graphics). But it's a hobby. There is nothing wrong with hobbies not being financially compensated in the capitalist system. In fact, most hobbies require a money expenditure, and are not a money source. I don't see anything at all wrong with this. It does not point out some flaw of the capitalist system as it relates to art. Yeah but lots of great works of art are produced by hobbiests, moonlighters, and people that make no income from their art or just a small ammount. Someone that enjoys your stories, drawings or graphic art are still going to consider you an "artist". And I dont see anything wrong with this either really. Nor do I think theres a big flaw in capitalism when it comes to art. All I remember saying is that there can be a conflict in some cases between great works of art and commercialization, and that could be seen as both a good thing and a bad thing. If you read through that book a little bit, it seems like the biggest reason most artists are relatively poor is competition. Theres a massive ammount of people making stuff out there, and it exploded after world war two, partly because it was seen as an attractive lifestyle and alternative to being a timeclock puncher, and the public in general has a high level of respect for these people. Theres also a higher than normal value placed on exposure and awards in the arts, and lots of artists focus on those things instead of (or as well as) monetization, hoping the money will come later. Edited February 16, 2012 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Theres a decent book on the economy of art here... http://books.google.ca/books?id=DukoxJd3SZ0C&dq=why+are+artists+poor+the+exceptional+economy+of+the+arts&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=_rPyScGvG8KrjAflgsnKDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=why%20are%20artists%20poor%20the%20exceptional%20economy%20of%20the%20arts&f=false I appreciate the link. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.