The fact of the matter is that whenever you buy a piece of art, be it a comic book, a movie, an album or a painting, a nice chunk of the money you plopped down goes to people besides the artists. Some goes to the retailer, some goes to the agents, managers and other brokers and, very often, a big part of it goes to some major corporation/publisher that was willing to front the money for the project. Now, this is not a bad system, per se, but it is one that is not necessarily needed anymore.
The Internet is getting faster, downloads move at insane rates and you could have a high definition movie on your home PC in the time it takes to make a cup of (instant) coffee. With this easy-to-use delivery system there is no reason any artist can't deliver their product right to their fans. Most do this in free MP3s or little extra film snippets, but there's no reason a musician, like Palmer, shouldn't use the net to make a fair monetary bargain: product for cash. The beauty of this system is that for a (sometimes) small expenditure of her own money Palmer can host an awesome webcast concert AND GET THE MAJORITY OF THE MONEY FOR HERSELF!
I'm not here to discuss copyright, artists rights, or the right for someone to get paid for giving you something (Corey Doctorow does much better anyway). I'm here to talk about just plain RIGHT and the seven principles of eGO.com, one of which is courage. Let me tell you this, if we at eGO define courage as: "the willpower to act despite fear, emboldened by the knowledge that your actions will help you achieve an outcome that is far more valuable than surrendering to your inhibitions." Then I think it's fair to say that Amanda Palmer fairly exemplifies that principle.
When fans complain that you're charging them for a webcast, most artists would find some guilt-laden way of saying sorry. Palmer just unabashedly tells them: "artists need to make money to eat and to continue to make art." The closest she comes to anything like an apology is,
"maybe i should be more tasteful.
maybe i should not stop my concerts and auction off art.
i do not claim to have figured out the perfect system, not by a long shot."
But she clearly takes a stand by following that up with,
"BUT … i’d rather get the system right gradually and learn from the mistakes and break new ground (with the help of an incredibly responsive and positive fanbase) for other artists who i assume are going to cautiously follow in our footsteps. we are creating the protocol, people, right here and now."
Posts
To me, it comes down to liberty and freedom of choice. If you have a problem wiht the way that she conducts her business, don't patronize her.
ReplyDeleteShe's trying to make a living. If you don't like it, don't help her.
The same people who complain have no problem cashing their paychecks. Why is it OK to take money from big corporate entities but not individuals? This is why so many wonderful creative people fade away...they can't pay their bills. Pee Wee Herman (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/PeeweeHerman?ref=nf)put a video on his facebook page about how he needs to eat. The bottom line is, if you want them to go away, don't patronize them. Otherwise, support the creativity, we need the outlet. If the artists can pay their bills they will be able to put all their energy into their creativity!
ReplyDeleteI agree.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather pay $20 directly to an artist - knowing they will end up getting the majority of the money - rather than paying $15 to a "go between" and not knowing how much an artist will receive in actuality. (I'm guessing about 10% or 20%?)
Excellent article. People always seem to assume that making art is not "work" and thus requires no compensation, or that artists should be above even discussing filthy lucre. Well, artists gotta eat and go to the pot like anyone else, AND they have to afford the materials and time to create. You CAN be an artist and a businessperson and not lose your soul or your muse.
ReplyDeleteGreat article - and all my love for Amanda Palmer aside, so very true. Artists never get 100% of the funds and have meager lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with perfectflaw75 that I would rather give that money directly into the hand of the artist. But alas, it's not how it works as of now.