What would it take to restore the arts to being profitable careers?

[Jack]

I have nothing to contribute, but just wanted to say it was fantastic reading the first and page of this thread where the discussion was profitability or art careers, them jumping to the last page where suddenly it's about dudes who want to fuck ponies and George Lucas (Maybe I'm missing a comma there..?)

Ha ha, as someone genuinely interested in the topic of monetizing art, I keep looking back in to see if this thread gets back on track, but alas, I suspect it won't.

If you don't think the ethics and consequences of your business model are "on topic" in a discussion of your business model, you have a problem.

I also take offense to the implication that only the people on your side of the debate are "genuine" in their position.

[ariapluscat]

I have nothing to contribute, but just wanted to say it was fantastic reading the first and page of this thread where the discussion was profitability or art careers, them jumping to the last page where suddenly it's about dudes who want to fuck ponies and George Lucas (Maybe I'm missing a comma there..?)

Ha ha, as someone genuinely interested in the topic of monetizing art, I keep looking back in to see if this thread gets back on track, but alas, I suspect it won't.

culling the foam

i think one of the best ways would be to get younger and lower income ppl engaged in art.
i know many writers now have the 'buy me a cup of coffee?' tipping suggestions and many artists do tutorials and progress videos as patron bonuses that are pretty affordable.
i'm not entirely sure how i feel about transparency of production being a paid feature, but it is a new avenue of profit.

[Orvell]

culling the foam

i think one of the best ways would be to get younger and lower income ppl engaged in art.
i know many writers now have the 'buy me a cup of coffee?' tipping suggestions and many artists do tutorials and progress videos as patron bonuses that are pretty affordable.
i'm not entirely sure how i feel about transparency of production being a paid feature, but it is a new avenue of profit.

Patreon and Kickstarter (along with the similar modes of profit) are a huge opportunity! I think crowd-sourced art is really interesting, and just in the baby-stages of development. :)
I have a Patreon page, and I have to say, I think being able to monetize transparency in production is great. People love process, and it's a key part of the business plan of many artists I interact with.
I'm not sure how applicable it is to other mediums (writing, for example) but visual art production is almost a product in and of itself.
Great example of this is James Gurney, who has done very cool illos for very cool things (Scientific American, Dinotopia, etc.) but who sells how-tos and process videos of his techinques, and has thousands of followers on instagram and BlogSpot. Because his process is super valuable and people are really interested in it!

[FIRE Artist]

culling the foam

i think one of the best ways would be to get younger and lower income ppl engaged in art.
i know many writers now have the 'buy me a cup of coffee?' tipping suggestions and many artists do tutorials and progress videos as patron bonuses that are pretty affordable.
i'm not entirely sure how i feel about transparency of production being a paid feature, but it is a new avenue of profit.

Patreon and Kickstarter (along with the similar modes of profit) are a huge opportunity! I think crowd-sourced art is really interesting, and just in the baby-stages of development. :)
I have a Patreon page, and I have to say, I think being able to monetize transparency in production is great. People love process, and it's a key part of the business plan of many artists I interact with.
I'm not sure how applicable it is to other mediums (writing, for example) but visual art production is almost a product in and of itself.
Great example of this is James Gurney, who has done very cool illos for very cool things (Scientific American, Dinotopia, etc.) but who sells how-tos and process videos of his techinques, and has thousands of followers on instagram and BlogSpot. Because his process is super valuable and people are really interested in it!

I love that you mention James Gurney, I just this weekend bought three of  his video tutorials.  I agree 100% in recognizing the value of process and monetizing it where possible.  Many people I know supporting themselves on their visual art have a teaching element to their business model.

A decent, easy read is the book Art Inc.  basically the premise is that someone wanting to support themselves through visual arts should look at setting up multiple income streams, like having an Etsy shop, videos on Skillshare, freelance/commissions, write a book etc.,  It makes perfect sense,  but I can see this being intimidating for many, so much hustleing and using skills that may not be natural for creatives.  It certainly can be done, and James Gurney is a perfect example, having liberated me from some of my stash through book and video purchases....and I don't even want to paint dinosaurs!

[FIRE Artist]

I have nothing to contribute, but just wanted to say it was fantastic reading the first and page of this thread where the discussion was profitability or art careers, them jumping to the last page where suddenly it's about dudes who want to fuck ponies and George Lucas (Maybe I'm missing a comma there..?)

Ha ha, as someone genuinely interested in the topic of monetizing art, I keep looking back in to see if this thread gets back on track, but alas, I suspect it won't.

If you don't think the ethics and consequences of your business model are "on topic" in a discussion of your business model, you have a problem.

I also take offense to the implication that only the people on your side of the debate are "genuine" in their position.

I don't have a business model, nor did I take a side in a debate here.  By all means, go ahead and be offended though. 

[arebelspy]

Thanks to this thread, my views have changed on copyright protection.  I was able to read different perspectives and do some research on my own.  I now think copyright protection should extend a reasonable length from the time it is produced (what a reasonable amount is, I don't have the answer.  15-20 years has been thrown out a few times on this thread--all I know for sure is that anything past the artists death seems ridiculous to me).

Internet arguing changed someone's mind. My day is made.

:)

(FWIW, reasonable past the artists death is okay with me too. If we decide 20 years is reasonable, and they die after 5, the heirs should get 15 years of profiting off of it. But MLK's kids stopping I Have A Dream from being public domain boils me.)

[Scandium]

I have nothing to contribute, but just wanted to say it was fantastic reading the first and page of this thread where the discussion was profitability or art careers, them jumping to the last page where suddenly it's about dudes who want to fuck ponies and George Lucas (Maybe I'm missing a comma there..?)

Ha ha, as someone genuinely interested in the topic of monetizing art, I keep looking back in to see if this thread gets back on track, but alas, I suspect it won't.

culling the foam

i think one of the best ways would be to get younger and lower income ppl engaged in art.
i know many writers now have the 'buy me a cup of coffee?' tipping suggestions and many artists do tutorials and progress videos as patron bonuses that are pretty affordable.
i'm not entirely sure how i feel about transparency of production being a paid feature, but it is a new avenue of profit.

Art aimed at poor and unsophisticated people, like myself, is called entertainment. And as far as I know it's pretty profitable. When it's primarily a way for people to show others how smart and/or rich they are we call it "art". And that seems to still sell pretty well.

I don't get the premise of the OP. Going to school hoping to create masterpieces and sell to some rich plutocrats seems like a pretty long shot. I think that would be obvious going in?! It would be like going to college to become an NFL quarterback or an astronaut. Then complaining I can't get a job.. Well duh! Was an art degree ever profitable?

Simple really; The rest of us got jobs producing things people want to pay for! But oh no, if people don't want to pay for art that's people's fault! Never the artist's. I'd like to sit around doodling for a profession too, but nobody would pay me for that so I got a real job.

[FIRE Artist]

I think Mustachinism really is a great option for creatives who have other more profitable abilities.  Work at a low risk, profitable career (like engineering) while you are young, FIRE and them pursue a second creative career afterwards if you want, skipping starving artist stress.  That is the route I have chosen.  Heck, you could even enroll in an art degree program post FIRE if you wanted to (not recommended though). 

@Scandium, you are correct, art degrees have never been profitable, and are currently being slammed within the arts community as a terrible disservice to aspiring artists who accumulate thousands in student loans with no career prospects to pay them off.  There is a revival of old fashion Atelier type art schools where you can study the craft of art making under a master for a fraction of the cost. 

[GuitarStv]

I think Mustachinism really is a great option for creatives who have other more profitable abilities.  Work at a low risk, profitable career (like engineering) while you are young, FIRE and them pursue a second creative career afterwards if you want, skipping starving artist stress.  That is the route I have chosen.

Me too . . . I wonder how many are drawn to FI because of an interest in devoting a large chunk of time towards artistic persuits.

[scrubbyfish]

As with many posts here, not on the original topic, but fitting for many of the subtopics that have arisen... 

I found this post intriguing in terms of writers' regrets, efforts, and decisions in relation to copyright, adaptation, etc: http://mentalfloss.com/article/61812/9-authors-who-regretted-success-their-work

[arebelspy]

As with many posts here, not on the original topic, but fitting for many of the subtopics that have arisen... 

I found this post intriguing in terms of writers' regrets, efforts, and decisions in relation to copyright, adaptation, etc: http://mentalfloss.com/article/61812/9-authors-who-regretted-success-their-work

A good mix of cases where copyright was helping the author (them not letting it be put into print again) or hurting (when a corporation owned it, and did things the original creator didn't want).

Thanks for sharing!

[Metric Mouse]

I have nothing to contribute, but just wanted to say it was fantastic reading the first and page of this thread where the discussion was profitability or art careers, them jumping to the last page where suddenly it's about dudes who want to fuck ponies and George Lucas (Maybe I'm missing a comma there..?)

Ha ha, as someone genuinely interested in the topic of monetizing art, I keep looking back in to see if this thread gets back on track, but alas, I suspect it won't.

culling the foam

i think one of the best ways would be to get younger and lower income ppl engaged in art.
i know many writers now have the 'buy me a cup of coffee?' tipping suggestions and many artists do tutorials and progress videos as patron bonuses that are pretty affordable.
i'm not entirely sure how i feel about transparency of production being a paid feature, but it is a new avenue of profit.

Art aimed at poor and unsophisticated people, like myself, is called entertainment. And as far as I know it's pretty profitable. When it's primarily a way for people to show others how smart and/or rich they are we call it "art". And that seems to still sell pretty well.

I don't get the premise of the OP. Going to school hoping to create masterpieces and sell to some rich plutocrats seems like a pretty long shot. I think that would be obvious going in?! It would be like going to college to become an NFL quarterback or an astronaut. Then complaining I can't get a job.. Well duh! Was an art degree ever profitable?

Simple really; The rest of us got jobs producing things people want to pay for! But oh no, if people don't want to pay for art that's people's fault! Never the artist's. I'd like to sit around doodling for a profession too, but nobody would pay me for that so I got a real job.

Bu..but... other people have made money as astronauts and quarterbacks! And my fancy degree says I am one too! I deserve to make as much money as they did. Sadly, times have changed, and now I have a huge debt from quarterback school and can't make money because something's different. :(

[arebelspy]

Bu..but... other people have made money as astronauts and quarterbacks! And my fancy degree says I am one too! I deserve to make as much money as they did. Sadly, times have changed, and now I have a huge debt from quarterback school and can't make money because something's different. :(

Have you thought about baseball instead?  I hear that's an option for failed quarterbacks.

[ariapluscat]

Art aimed at poor and unsophisticated people, like myself, is called entertainment. And as far as I know it's pretty profitable. When it's primarily a way for people to show others how smart and/or rich they are we call it "art". And that seems to still sell pretty well.

Not really. Not all art aimed at poor ppl is entertainment. Nor is all art intended to show education or wealth.
That's just not how it works.
Like some entertainment can be art : film festivals often award artistic recognition to popular movies. I've been watching mr. robot so one of the first movies that comes to mind is A Beautiful Mind. It did well in theaters, influenced other cinema, and has recognized artistic merit.
And there are things like outsider art, protest art, and pop art. Those are aimed at both the poor and some like protest can even exclude the wealthy.

Let's not give up hope for those long shots! The odds may not actually be that long.
Plus if someone is making money in entertainment, I guess they took your advice and got a paying job.
Best or Worst case is that your kickstarter funded entertainment low brow not-art is considered fine art after you die, lol.

[Scandium]

Art aimed at poor and unsophisticated people, like myself, is called entertainment. And as far as I know it's pretty profitable. When it's primarily a way for people to show others how smart and/or rich they are we call it "art". And that seems to still sell pretty well.

Not really. Not all art aimed at poor ppl is entertainment. Nor is all art intended to show education or wealth.
That's just not how it works.
Like some entertainment can be art : film festivals often award artistic recognition to popular movies. I've been watching mr. robot so one of the first movies that comes to mind is A Beautiful Mind. It did well in theaters, influenced other cinema, and has recognized artistic merit.
And there are things like outsider art, protest art, and pop art. Those are aimed at both the poor and some like protest can even exclude the wealthy.

Ok, "art" is whatever the critics and influencers (usually rich/sophisticated people) say is art. What they don't like is called entertainment. Sometimes they co-opt things aimed at the masses and it become elevated and "approved" as art. (Usually this happens to be things that aren't successful as entertainment, so the art-folks can show how much better they are than the masses. But most things enjoyed by large number of people remain as entertainment for the filthy proles.

Why is Beautiful Mind art but the Transformers movies are not? Give me five objective measures. Ready? go!

[swick]

Why is Beautiful Mind art but the Transformers movies are not? Give me five objective measures. Ready? go!

Bay offers technically layered derivative shots with mass consumer appeal. For a really fascinating analysis,  I would suggest Every Frame A Painting's video on "Bayhem"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q

As to how to restore the arts to a profitable career? Treat it like a business. I know tons of people who went through a minimum of 4 years of arts education who never learned a single thing about how to make money from their art. There should be a required business component in every art school.

Embrace new technology and platforms. Great post on using Patreon to fund your photography: http://www.peteryuenphotography.com/Essays/5-Tips-for-Crowdfunding-Your-P But mostly check out his Patreon page for how he is sponsoring his work with nonprofits. There are lots of creative ways to fund your career, you just have to explore them.

Make "commercial" art to fund your passion projects.

Explore your biases/hang-ups/judgments about what "Art" is. I think this one of the biggest things holding people back.

[Scandium]

Why is Beautiful Mind art but the Transformers movies are not? Give me five objective measures. Ready? go!

Bay offers technically layered derivative shots with mass consumer appeal. For a really fascinating analysis,  I would suggest Every Frame A Painting's video on "Bayhem"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q

While interesting that didn't really answer my question. Can I have a checklist that will let me distinguish art from entertainment?

[swick]

Why is Beautiful Mind art but the Transformers movies are not? Give me five objective measures. Ready? go!

Bay offers technically layered derivative shots with mass consumer appeal. For a really fascinating analysis,  I would suggest Every Frame A Painting's video on "Bayhem"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q

While interesting that didn't really answer my question. Can I have a checklist that will let me distinguish art from entertainment?

Nope, because both are subjective, there is no definitive answer to what is "art" or "entertainment" and as societies change ideas around both will change. You have to come up with your OWN checklist.

Is a sculpture with moving pieces entertainment? Sure!

Is a circus ring leader who can command the audience and put on an amazing show art? Sure!

Is a video game with a developed story and awesome graphics and level design art? You betcha!

Art is meant to entertain, make a statement, sometimes just be beautiful for beauty's sake. In renaissance art, personal vendettas were displayed, social commentary, inside jokes.

[Watchmaker]

While interesting that didn't really answer my question. Can I have a checklist that will let me distinguish art from entertainment?

Of course you can't, because there is no standard agreed upon definition for either which clearly stakes out the boundary (if there is a boundary).  Lots of people have had their say, for example:

http://goinswriter.com/art-and-entertainment/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-lasarow/art-versus-entertainment_b_658792.html
http://www.impactingculture.com/2011/11/14/art-vs-entertainment/

But that's just their opinion.

My favorite definition of art is one I've co-opted from Dietrich Bonhoeffer: the role of art is to "comfort the troubled, and trouble the comfortable". (He was talking about religion).

Entertainment that is not art is entertainment that seeks to comfort the comfortable.  That doesn't make it bad, and being art doesn't make it good, but if you want definitions, those are my personal ones.

[Watchmaker]

As to how to restore the arts to a profitable career? Treat it like a business. I know tons of people who went through a minimum of 4 years of arts education who never learned a single thing about how to make money from their art. There should be a required business component in every art school.

I completely agree that this is good advice for someone living in our current world who wants to make a living with their art.  I question whether it's the best system we can come up with, though.  To be good at business you must spend time learning what to do, and doing it.  Time that might better serve society if it were spent on the art.  We're not short of people with good business minds.  And we don't expect someone working in the office of a record label to learn the guitar, so why do we want artists to learn SEO?

[Northwestie]

And we don't expect someone working in the office of a record label to learn the guitar, so why do we want artists to learn SEO?

Likely because they can make a decent living.  And, IMO, well rounded folks should develop some type of craft other than there job - but that's me.   If you want to be an independent artist then some fundamental knowledge of business seems appropriate.  I respect artists - just stop whinning that you can't make a decent living at it.  The world is not fair.

There is a passage in Walden where Thoreau is talking about basic life skills and describes a local person who developed basket weaving skills and tried to sell them door to door.  When folks passed on a purchase he said "Do you mean me to starve?".

No, I just don't want or need a basket.

[ariapluscat]

As to how to restore the arts to a profitable career? Treat it like a business. I know tons of people who went through a minimum of 4 years of arts education who never learned a single thing about how to make money from their art. There should be a required business component in every art school.

I completely agree that this is good advice for someone living in our current world who wants to make a living with their art.  I question whether it's the best system we can come up with, though.  To be good at business you must spend time learning what to do, and doing it.  Time that might better serve society if it were spent on the art.  We're not short of people with good business minds.  And we don't expect someone working in the office of a record label to learn the guitar, so why do we want artists to learn SEO?

I may not be fully understanding, but i think this comes from the MMM and FIRE focus on financial literacy. swick may not expect a perfect or CEO-level financial understanding from artists, but a functional one or the ability to choose good financial advisers.

[swick]

And we don't expect someone working in the office of a record label to learn the guitar, so why do we want artists to learn SEO?

I don't mean SEO. Most artists aren't even taught the BASICS. How to keep track of their expenses, how to price their work, how to negotiate gallery and commission contracts. How to cultivate relationships for repeat customers...

And for all those artists who were taken advantage of (especially in the music industry) because they didn't understand the business side of their art/craft it is super important.

Every creative job (including the arts) has aspects that aren't directly related to "making art" but are still necessary.

You can always do art for art's sake, but in order to make it a "profitable" career, you have to do some of the side work or partner with people who can do it for/with you*. The more profitable you are, the easier that is.

FWIW - my background is in arts nonprofit management, with a side biz of coaching artists to become profitable. So, I have some very strong opinions on the matter, which is why I have stayed out of this thread thus far.

Edit: I really do love your personal definitions, Watchmaker.

Edit, Edit: Actionable tip: Several visual artists I know have been working the theory that connection with the artist is more important than the actual art. They have started putting their pictures and stories WITH the art, either as part of their artist's statements in galleries,or more often, in their online galleries and have seen sales triple. People are buying your passions, story, expression.

[Watchmaker]

And we don't expect someone working in the office of a record label to learn the guitar, so why do we want artists to learn SEO?

I don't mean SEO. Most artists aren't even taught the BASICS. How to keep track of their expenses, how to price their work, how to negotiate gallery and commission contracts. How to cultivate relationships for repeat customers...

And for all those artists who were taken advantage of (especially in the music industry) because they didn't understand the business side of their art/craft it is super important.

Every creative job (including the arts) has aspects that aren't directly related to "making art" but are still necessary.

You can always do art for art's sake, but in order to make it a "profitable" career, you have to do some of the side work or partner with people who can do it for/with you*. The more profitable you are, the easier that is.

FWIW - my background is in arts nonprofit management, with a side biz of coaching artists to become profitable. So, I have some very strong opinions on the matter, which is why I have stayed out of this thread thus far.

Well, I'm glad you've joined the conversation now, as we were heading down a rabbit hole of George Lucas & bronies.

I completely agree that artists trying to make money off of their art in our society need to have at least basic business skills, and to know how to appropriately price and market their art.  I just don't think this system is very good compared to the one we could have if we wanted it (which, as I discussed up thread, is UBI).  I won't belabor that point further in this thread though.





 

[Watchmaker]

Edit, Edit: Actionable tip: Several visual artists I know have been working the theory that connection with the artist is more important than the actual art. They have started putting their pictures and stories WITH the art, either as part of their artist's statements in galleries,or more often, in their online galleries and have seen sales triple. People are buying your passions, story, expression.

I think this is a good point, and this is largely the reason for the success behind the Patreon model--it's the access people are buying as much as the art.  There are certain artists that don't want to provide that kind of access, and some who argue it would harm their work to do so (Elena Ferrante being the obvious and topical example) so for them this isn't an option, but for many others it is a great fit.

I've not been in the position of "selling access" but I have been in the position of "buying access" (on Patreon).  Overall I think it's great but I've had a few occasions where the access has felt strange due to the one sided nature of the relationship.  Getting to know someone who doesn't know you can be... odd.

[swick]

Overall I think it's great but I've had a few occasions where the access has felt strange due to the one sided nature of the relationship.  Getting to know someone who doesn't know you can be... odd.

Welcome to the world of online anything, this is why two-way community building is so important - and why the whole new field of "Community Managment" has sprung up. Even outside of the art world it is weird, especially when you connect in meetups and such with other MMM'ers :)

[Watchmaker]

Overall I think it's great but I've had a few occasions where the access has felt strange due to the one sided nature of the relationship.  Getting to know someone who doesn't know you can be... odd.

Welcome to the world of online anything, this is why two-way community building is so important - and why the whole new field of "Community Managment" has sprung up. Even outside of the art world it is weird, especially when you connect in meetups and such with other MMM'ers :)

Another skill our budding artist needs to succeed!

I joke, but I do worry that by requiring* artists to be entrepreneurs, we're narrowing the spectrum of people producing art and consequentially reducing the range of art being produced. 

*By requiring I mean both economically requiring but also culturally requiring--by demanding access to the lives of artists.

[GuitarStv]

That's not a convincing argument.

The range of art being produced doesn't matter if it never gets in the hands of anyone interested in it.  Without some effort spent economically and culturally generating interest in their art, it's just not going to find an audience.

[swick]

I joke, but I do worry that by requiring* artists to be entrepreneurs, we're narrowing the spectrum of people producing art and consequentially reducing the range of art being produced. 

*By requiring I mean both economically requiring but also culturally requiring--by demanding access to the lives of artists.

I think it really comes down to motivation. "WHY" is the artist creating art? "WHY" does an individual's art "HAVE" to be profitable?

I know many, many fantastic artists who just want to create. That is awesome. It is their meditation, their creative outlet, their pastime, their form of self-expression.

The problem arises when everyone tells them they should "turn it into a career" when they aren't cut out for it or don't have time/energy/interest in learning the business side of things. They make a few half-hearted efforts, get disappointed. The believe the clap-trap about "suffering for your art" and having to be a "Starving artists" that our culture perpetuates. So they give up, they think they are no good, they equate commercial success with being fulfilled - their desire just to make art dies.

Or they offer their art at such ridiculously low prices it corrodes the entire sector and makes it that much harder for everyone to earn what they are worth.

Artists have always had to do something else besides their art, applying for grants, convincing a patron to sponsor their work, attend openings, get up and perform once they have created their cd or wrote that song... If you want to be "profitable" you have to play the game in the current reality while you are building a new paradigm.

[Watchmaker]

That's not a convincing argument.

The range of art being produced doesn't matter if it never gets in the hands of anyone interested in it.  Without some effort spent economically and culturally generating interest in their art, it's just not going to find an audience.

I disagree with your final statement.  Many artists have been discovered through no particular effort of their own (beyond creating their art) but through the effort of a journalist, academic, or business (publishing house, A&R, etc).  We can make that more or less likely to happen by how we structure our society.

Artists have always had to do something else besides their art, applying for grants, convincing a patron to sponsor their work, attend openings, get up and perform once they have created their cd or wrote that song... If you want to be "profitable" you have to play the game in the current reality while you are building a new paradigm.

Your interest, Swick, seems to be mostly in training artists to work within the current system which is laudable, but it's that new paradigm that I'm most interested in.  Are there things we could do as a society that would enable production and dissemination of more and better art?

You mentioned grants.  Dramatically increasing federal grants for the arts would be one thing we could do (not one I'm fond of, though).

I promised I wouldn't mention UBI again.

What about ways to help good artists (particularly those lacking the marketing skills) reach an audience?  How about increasing funding for public radio/television with an emphasis on arts criticism?  Public radio exposure has been my introduction to many interesting artists.

Not all of the solutions should consist of throwing money at the problem.  Combating the anti-intellectualism streak in our society would sure help the arts thrive (among many other benefits). 

[swick]

Your interest, Swick, seems to be mostly in training artists to work within the current system which is laudable, but it's that new paradigm that I'm most interested in.  Are there things we could do as a society that would enable production and dissemination of more and better art?

No,  you don't get into nonprofits arts work because you are interested in working within the current system. Talk about an exercise in futility. But it is easier to create a shift if you acknowledge that you just have to work within the system while you are creating a paradigm shift.

You have to rip everything down to its essence. You have to come up with new definitions and meaning for concepts. You have to educate people in a new way of viewing the world around them. As we are not evolved enough to live in a world not dominated by the scarcity mentality, money will always be a barrier.

Public radio is awesome, I live in Canada so maybe we have more? With the ability to podcast and have internet radio shows for free, what is stopping you from starting your own shift?

Opening your house to artists and having house concerts and pop-up shows is a great way to get the conversation around new ways of supporting art and moving towards a different model - but still, the artist has to take some responsibility and be proactive in sharing their work.

There are lots of nonprofits and art advocacy groups that are working on a paradigm shift and championing arts at all levels. In schools, in communities where art supplies is a luxury, as a healing modality in health care. The problem is these Orgs also need to support themselves somehow and that takes time and money. If you want a shift then EVERYONE has to be involved from artists to people with business skills to policy makers.

[Northwestie]

Regarding music - I like the model of KEXP in Seattle.  100% listener sponsored, play a variety of music, no play lists, early adopter of streaming and archiving, and a strong emphasis of promoting local artists.  These guys rock.

http://www.kexp.org/

[Jack]

That's not a convincing argument.

The range of art being produced doesn't matter if it never gets in the hands of anyone interested in it.  Without some effort spent economically and culturally generating interest in their art, it's just not going to find an audience.

I disagree with your final statement.  Many artists have been discovered through no particular effort of their own (beyond creating their art) but through the effort of a journalist, academic, or business (publishing house, A&R, etc).

... or The Pirate Bay (and other forms of copyright infringement "alternative crowdsourced distribution"), for that matter!

The relationship between audience and income is tenuous, at best. Obviously, before you can make a policy to accomplish a goal, you've first got to figure out what the goal is. So what is it? Increasing the audience, increasing the income for the artist, or something else? Remember, almost all current policy is based on restricting the audience...

[FIRE Artist]

I see a lot of merit in both swick and Watchmaker's arguments and depending on my mood on a particular day, I might lean more towards UBI or artists learning the business side of art making.

Today, I am wondering what is it about artists that makes them so special that we would think that they shouldn't have to learn the business of selling art.  Why should the artist be exempt from that, when say, a plumber is not?  If I am a plumber,and I want to earn a living, I have to learn how to run my business.  Plumbers don't have inherent business skills that an artist doesn't, so if a plumber can learn these skills I would expect artists are able too.  Sure, some individual plumbers can't or don't want to, so they go to work for a company, artists can go into commercial art instead of being an individual studio artist as well. 

Is it the fear that having an artist spend time on the menial details of running a business would rob the world of its next masterpiece?

[Watchmaker]

Public radio is awesome, I live in Canada so maybe we have more? With the ability to podcast and have internet radio shows for free, what is stopping you from starting your own shift?

The public radio available to me is excellent (both the state and national programming) and actually includes some CBC content (As It Happens, Q).  Since they do such a good job on limited funds, I'd like to see what they could do with more money. 

I'm also a big fan of podcasting, and love how low the barrier to entry is.  In fact, I think podcasting has done more for increasing the variety of arts I am exposed to than any other medium. 

I follow with interest the business models of various podcasting networks.  Jesse Thorn's Maximum Fun network has had a fair amount of success, but I'm skeptical of the pseudo-public radio funding model.

A lot of Chicago improv people have turned to podcasting as a way of expanding their reach and potential for income (examples include Improvised Star Trek, The One Shot Podcast Network, and Hello From the Magic Tavern).  I think at least one of those is providing substantial income to its creator through advertising revenue, live shows, merchandise and fan support.

[Jack]

A lot of Chicago improv people have turned to podcasting as a way of expanding their reach and potential for income (examples include Improvised Star Trek...

Good luck with that once Paramount finds out about it!

[Watchmaker]

I see a lot of merit in both swick and Watchmaker's arguments and depending on my mood on a particular day, I might lean more towards UBI or artists learning the business side of art making.

Today, I am wondering what is it about artists that makes them so special that we would think that they shouldn't have to learn the business of selling art.  Why should the artist be exempt from that, when say, a plumber is not?  If I am a plumber,and I want to earn a living, I have to learn how to run my business.  Plumbers don't have inherent business skills that an artist doesn't, so if a plumber can learn these skills I would expect artists are able too.  Sure, some individual plumbers can't or don't want to, so they go to work for a company, artists can go into commercial art instead of being an individual studio artist as well. 

Is it the fear that having an artist spend time on the menial details of running a business would rob the world of its next masterpiece?

I'm really trying to not drag this thread back into a discuss of UBI, but my answer to your (reasonable) question is: they are not special.  I want to treat everyone the same; I don't think anyone should have to earn a living when we as a species can now far exceed our needs with our productivity.  If everyone was guaranteed a basic income then if they were passion about something they could choose to pursue it without the need to earn enough money to survive.  I believe this freedom would be beneficial to them, and also to society.  A key idea is that in the worse case (where they produce nothing of value), society is no worse off that if we had demanded they perform menial, easily-automated labor for that same income. 

I'm not suggesting we treat artists differently, I'm suggesting we give everyone more choice in how they spend their life.

[swick]

A lot of Chicago improv people have turned to podcasting as a way of expanding their reach and potential for income (examples include Improvised Star Trek, The One Shot Podcast Network, and Hello From the Magic Tavern).  I think at least one of those is providing substantial income to its creator through advertising revenue, live shows, merchandise and fan support.

Improv companies are also live-steaming content (which is bloody brilliant) This is a company I have some friends with in Austin: https://gigity.tv/HideoutTheatre#broadcasts

But one would argue again, they are not just creating content, as you say the producer in your example is creating streams of revenue from merchandise and ad revenue, which both have to be managed.

[tardis]

Following

[scrubbyfish]

Well, I'm glad you've joined the conversation now, as we were heading down a rabbit hole of George Lucas & bronies.

lol!

[ariapluscat]

pro-podcast people:

For artists that don't work on auditory media, do you think that interviews or recordings of their making process are interesting to listen to? What would you want to hear from say a visual artist? Would hearing the audio of a kitchen during rush be fun to hear for a famous chef?

I always wonder about how much museums can do to share things the way podcasts do. there's so much great audio that sits in databases and never reaches a broad audience. and i think storage could be subsidized a little by the revenue of new listeners (either via however most podcasts make money or by the increased admission to the storing institution).

[Watchmaker]

pro-podcast people:

For artists that don't work on auditory media, do you think that interviews or recordings of their making process are interesting to listen to? What would you want to hear from say a visual artist? Would hearing the audio of a kitchen during rush be fun to hear for a famous chef?

I always wonder about how much museums can do to share things the way podcasts do. there's so much great audio that sits in databases and never reaches a broad audience. and i think storage could be subsidized a little by the revenue of new listeners (either via however most podcasts make money or by the increased admission to the storing institution).

Quite a few podcasts I listen to will point people toward visual information at their website when appropriate... but I often can't check while listening and forget to later on.  It does work sometimes; the In Our Time episode about William Blake got me to go the blakearchive.org which was crucial for me to understand the discussion.

Podcasts work well for discussing the process, particularly a collaborative process since so much of it happens verbally anyway.

[FIRE Artist]

pro-podcast people:

For artists that don't work on auditory media, do you think that interviews or recordings of their making process are interesting to listen to? What would you want to hear from say a visual artist? Would hearing the audio of a kitchen during rush be fun to hear for a famous chef?

I always wonder about how much museums can do to share things the way podcasts do. there's so much great audio that sits in databases and never reaches a broad audience. and i think storage could be subsidized a little by the revenue of new listeners (either via however most podcasts make money or by the increased admission to the storing institution).

Yes, I think that people would want to hear about the process, but also, artists are interested in hearing about the lives and struggles and inspirations of other artists.  A great example of the latter is The Jealous Curator, she added a podcast to her blog a year ago, every episode is an interview with a visual artist, they are from all over the world.  They are casual conversation around hearing the artist's "story", how did they become artists, what inspires them etc.  On her blog, she shows pictures of their work so you can see what kind of work the artist does.

[FIRE Artist]

I see a lot of merit in both swick and Watchmaker's arguments and depending on my mood on a particular day, I might lean more towards UBI or artists learning the business side of art making.

Today, I am wondering what is it about artists that makes them so special that we would think that they shouldn't have to learn the business of selling art.  Why should the artist be exempt from that, when say, a plumber is not?  If I am a plumber,and I want to earn a living, I have to learn how to run my business.  Plumbers don't have inherent business skills that an artist doesn't, so if a plumber can learn these skills I would expect artists are able too.  Sure, some individual plumbers can't or don't want to, so they go to work for a company, artists can go into commercial art instead of being an individual studio artist as well. 

Is it the fear that having an artist spend time on the menial details of running a business would rob the world of its next masterpiece?

I'm really trying to not drag this thread back into a discuss of UBI, but my answer to your (reasonable) question is: they are not special.  I want to treat everyone the same; I don't think anyone should have to earn a living when we as a species can now far exceed our needs with our productivity.  If everyone was guaranteed a basic income then if they were passion about something they could choose to pursue it without the need to earn enough money to survive.  I believe this freedom would be beneficial to them, and also to society.  A key idea is that in the worse case (where they produce nothing of value), society is no worse off that if we had demanded they perform menial, easily-automated labor for that same income. 

I'm not suggesting we treat artists differently, I'm suggesting we give everyone more choice in how they spend their life.

That makes sense.  At the risk of falling down the UBI rabbit hole, everything I have read about the concept is that the UBI would be at best at the poverty line, so not one which would pay for things like fancy art supplies or classes, so likely someone who wanted to spend their time on visual arts, would have to supplement their income some way, either a part time job or selling their art, so perhaps in the UBI utopia, business skills might still not be a bad idea. 

[Watchmaker]

That makes sense.  At the risk of falling down the UBI rabbit hole, everything I have read about the concept is that the UBI would be at best at the poverty line, so not one which would pay for things like fancy art supplies or classes, so likely someone who wanted to spend their time on visual arts, would have to supplement their income some way, either a part time job or selling their art, so perhaps in the UBI utopia, business skills might still not be a bad idea.

Agreed.  Since UBI involves directly giving people money, their ability to properly handle that money will be important.  But, as mustachians, we know than a family of 4 living on a income at the federal poverty level ($24,300) could have a fantastic MMM-like life with no worries, and easily afford art supplies (or podcasting equipment, or carpenter's tools, etc)