Althouse: "If the artists starve, we’ll all go hungry."

January 20, 2015

"If the artists starve, we’ll all go hungry."

"All the other victims of the ragged economy receive sympathy, apart from artists."

58 comments:

Scott M said...: Artists shouldn't receive sympathy. It would soothe their otherwise tortured souls and what do you get from soothed souls? Bad art.; 1/20/15, 8:08 AM
tim maguire said...: One of my favorite quotes on the culture wars, from an interview with Wallace Shawn (but said by the interviewer): "In 'The Designated Mourner,' there is a sense that the liberal intelligentsia may be impotent, irresponsible, hypothetical, but at the same time, when they go, everything of value goes with them."; 1/20/15, 8:23 AM
Jaq said...: Their work should be reward enough, suffering is their historic lot, and on and on. This, Mr. Timberg rightly argues, is BS.

As long as people are willing to do what you do for free, you are going to have to be the very best to make money at it, part of a tiny elite at the top. There is no right to be an artist. There are many thousands of young men in cities across America playing great basketball, for free. There is a tiny elite of men playing basketball for huge money. That is how it works.

I get the feeling so many of these complaining artists want to earn a living regardless of merit, and forget that they made a choice not to study petroleum engineering, or medicine, and it was a real choice and they are living with the consequences. Same as all of the men across Canada who never made it past junior hockey even though they sacrificed their studies.; 1/20/15, 8:31 AM
MadisonMan said...: As if the only royalties come from Pandora.; 1/20/15, 8:31 AM
Xmas said...: 43 million plays on Pandora is equal to the song being played on one radio station in New York City once per day for a month.

The amount of royalties Pharrell would get from that...less than $5000.

Also, Pandora has also said that Pharrell and his label were paid about $150,000 for those 43 million plays. How much the label distributes to Pharrell Williams is an issue between him and his label.; 1/20/15, 8:32 AM
rehajm said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/20/15, 8:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Artists don’t actually to like to complain publicly about their lot in life, knowing the inevitable backlash from those who still believe that creating is not “a real job.”

spew; 1/20/15, 8:35 AM
Ann Althouse said...: It's hard to compare plays to record sales.

In the old days, we bought a single and played it thousands of times.; 1/20/15, 8:35 AM
rehajm said...: Second, we have to return to a place where people are paid for the fruits of their labour, whether they’re making a car or a song. Because I’m not Merlin, I’m not entirely sure how that will be accomplished.

Advice: There's more job security in making cars than songs.; 1/20/15, 8:37 AM
LordSomber said...: Starving artists are my favorite kind. Thins the herd.; 1/20/15, 8:38 AM
rehajm said...: Advice: Turn your career into a hobby you do in your leisure time.; 1/20/15, 8:39 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: Perhaps the artists should consider an Amazon portal.

I am Laslo.; 1/20/15, 8:42 AM
Jaq said...: It used to be record companies that screwed the artists, those were the good old days.

It is always possible for a popular artist to make shedloads of money, by, you know, working for it, by touring. What they want is to collect money, not to make money.; 1/20/15, 8:43 AM
Seeing Red said...: He can get free healthcare, free phones, free housing, free food, so I don't see what the issue is. All his basic needs are met. Don't be greedy, we have too many 1%ers as it is.; 1/20/15, 8:48 AM
Matt Sablan said...: It's very easy to produce art.

It is very hard to produce art that people will pay large sums for.; 1/20/15, 8:53 AM
Mitch H. said...: If the artists starve, we'll all go hungry

A sentiment expressed by a person who has never encountered actual starvation, let alone experienced it for herself.

If you see an artist in the street, beat him. He will know the reason why.; 1/20/15, 8:59 AM
MarkW said...: "I get the feeling so many of these complaining artists want to earn a living regardless of merit..."

Actually, I think the problem is expecting a living because of merit (how talented and dedicated they are, how hard they work), but what really matters is not merit but value (how much use fellow humans have for their work).

If you spend years working your butt off on something (just because you really love doing it) and can't be bothered to find out that hardly anybody actually wants what you're making (because they aren't really very interested or perhaps because that kind of thing is already cheap and plentiful) -- you deserve to be disappointed and to go have to get a day job.; 1/20/15, 9:04 AM
David said...: Poor Pharrell. Not enough cash for clicks for his song. Of course he's getting rich rich rich but never mind that.

Pharrell has actual talent, lots of it. He's getting paid just fine. In fact so are a lot of pop culture stars. Plug into the worldwide pop culture, and the money flows and flows.

So perhaps the rich artists should subsidize the starving ones? Are they doing that? A little bit. But mostly they spend and flaunt their wealth.; 1/20/15, 9:13 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Pandora serves up things it thinks you'll like, but often you don't. It's more like a radio station pushing new songs out there, helping an artist get popular, and less like a record seller.

You used to buy a record after you got to like something so much you wanted to own it and play it as much as you chose. You'd already heard it on the radio many times, usually.; 1/20/15, 9:16 AM
Todd said...: Today, many "artists" FEEL that what they do should be valued, regardless of if anyone besides them actually do. No one has a "right" to earn a living at anything to include being an artist. In times past, most artists were starving artists. They had patrons that funded their efforts, many times on commission.

No matter what you do, if you don't make money at it, it is called a hobby. If your hobby can't support you, go get a real job like everyone else OR get a patron to subsidies your efforts.; 1/20/15, 9:25 AM
Gahrie said...: There is no reason why entertainers should be millionaires. Until mass media arrived, most entertainers subsisted in a state of poverty.; 1/20/15, 9:26 AM
Jaq said...: If you see an artist in the street, beat him. He will know the reason why.

My vote for wins the internet this week goes here.; 1/20/15, 9:29 AM
Rae said...: There are many artists I wouldn't have discovered without Pandora. Their music simply isn't played on the radio here. A few of them, I've actually bought their music, because I want them to make more. If they come around on tour, I would probably pay to see them.

How much is that worth?

It seemsp to me the real problem in the music industry is shitty music. I wish that were talked about more.; 1/20/15, 9:29 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: I am paid in admiration, adoration and envy.

It is enough.

I am Laslo.; 1/20/15, 9:33 AM
Skyler said...: Haven't seen much good art being made in the past seventy years or so.

Instead, we've been inflicted with art created by Federal Project Number One, which came about because people wanted "artists" to not starve. Since then art has been crap, to be blunt.

If artists had to make good art to survive, perhaps we would have better artists.; 1/20/15, 9:40 AM
Balfegor said...: Not sympathetic at all. Artists seem more susceptible to evil than most people, if only because modern artists are so keen on being transgressive. During the 20th century, the vast majority of artists in the West were quite keen on millions of people starving to death. Artists supported the fascists in huge numbers in the early part of the century, racist and fascistic anti-colonial movements afterwards, and bestial communism the entire time. Art can be many things, but it's rare these days, that it can be described as morally good.

These chaps can get a 9-5 job and make art in their spare time.

Mm.

Well, to be fair to the people called out in the article, they're not really that sort of artist -- the moustache twirlingly evil kind. Rather, they seem like common-or-garden entertainers, people with a talent for making stuff people like.; 1/20/15, 9:53 AM
Wince said...: Subsidize something and you'll get more of it.

Including bad art.; 1/20/15, 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...: We sympathize with those talentless souls who delude themselves with the moniker of artists. Hope sympathy pays the bills and feeds the tummy.

Balfegor said...
"people with a talent for making stuff people like."

When people can't pay for what they need, they can't pay for what they want, least of all pay for what they like.; 1/20/15, 10:12 AM
buwaya said...: Artists complaining about their lot (lack of open handed patrons) is not a new thing at all. This whining has gone on for millennia.
If there was something to change, these days, it would be the corporate willingness to patronize art, or certain kinds of art, or rather craftsmanship, as pure decoration, to please their customers and workers. There is way too little of that, it became unfashionable in the 1940s and hasn't come back. Perhaps when artists gave up on making beauty.; 1/20/15, 10:15 AM
Peter said...: "As long as people are willing to do what you do for free, you are going to have to be the very best to make money at it"

Prostitution, pornography, and now art discover the threat of the amateur: it's tough to compete with free, isn't it?; 1/20/15, 10:27 AM
Wilbur said...: This situation cries out for an explosion of NEA grants.

That, or free community college tuition. Same targeted recipients.

Federal gummit once again comes to the rescue.; 1/20/15, 10:28 AM
Jaq said...: If making art is such a "job," then I guess getting a different job that pays better is not really a comedown, is it?; 1/20/15, 10:30 AM
cubanbob said...: These hungry artist need to reconsider their career paths. Try getting a job the pays as the day job and leave Art for their sideline job.; 1/20/15, 11:31 AM
Jason said...: If these royalty rates for electronic delivery are unacceptably low, why did the publishers agree to them? And why aren't artists flocking to publishers who will offer a better deal?; 1/20/15, 11:32 AM
Sam L. said...: Life is hard. On the other hand, I recommend Unorganized Hancock:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unorganized+hancock; 1/20/15, 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: If the artists starve, we'll all go hungry.

From relatives who pay for their food and rent from their income as freelance artists, I am reliably informed that a substantial proportion of their artist friends live on inherited money and don't need sales of their art to survive.; 1/20/15, 11:55 AM
Tank said...: Ann Althouse said...

Pandora serves up things it thinks you'll like, but often you don't. It's more like a radio station pushing new songs out there, helping an artist get popular, and less like a record seller.

You used to buy a record after you got to like something so much you wanted to own it and play it as much as you chose. You'd already heard it on the radio many times, usually.

Actually, in the olden days (I'm your age) once you had heard enough of a group to decide that you liked them, you would often buy their next album as soon as it came out (before you heard any of it - that's what my friends an I did).

The music business has not gotten better for most of the people in it. Forty years ago a local band could play a club in NJ on Saturday night for $1,500. Now the rate might be $350, or in a smaller house, pass the hat !

I'm sympathetic (not sympathetic as in gov't should pay anything, but I like artists of all types and try to support them where I can - I've never downloaded anything for free, I don't want to do that to the artist).; 1/20/15, 12:14 PM
Fred Drinkwater said...: MarkW writes:
"If you spend years working your butt off on something (just because you really love doing it) and can't be bothered to find out that hardly anybody actually wants what you're making (because they aren't really very interested or perhaps because that kind of thing is already cheap and plentiful) -- you deserve to be disappointed and to go have to get a day job."
I sometimes advise startups about fundraising and the like. When I meet them, about 20 percent have not yet answered the question: "What problem are you solving? Why would anyone give you their hard-earned money in exchange for your product?"
Enthusiasm among founders is nice, even necessary, but if no one wants to pay you then it's a hobby, not a business. I'm not rich enough to fund other peoples' hobbies.; 1/20/15, 12:45 PM
TMink said...: Good luck starving in America. If you starve here, it is a choice.

Trey; 1/20/15, 1:17 PM
Jason said...: The Phenomenon isn't new.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiKgQYxUnTs; 1/20/15, 1:51 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: A lot of things going on here, but much of it seems to be whining about how the digital world has made bricks and mortar businesses obsolete. The advantage to the rest of us is that it is much more efficient - why pay for all those stores, employees, etc., if you can download it off the Internet (hopefully after paying for it), saving all that money formerly spent on intermediaries. So, the middle men are put out of business, and the rest of us, some 300+ Americans, and billions of non-Americans get cheaper music. Often, much cheaper. Giving us more money to spend everywhere else. Its called progress, and is why buggy whip manufacturers went out of business.

The other problem is called the long tail. Which is a bit misleading. At one time, local musicians could make a decent living. No longer, because the entertainment business is now global. The result is that the top people make much more, and everyone else makes less. Ignoring the previous problem, this means that money is shifted from the mediocre and almost great to the top people. But, the flip side of the curve is that the mediocre, and merely good, can make some money in the digital age, as opposed to none previously.

Finally, it is good to keep in mind that entertainment, including art, is a luxury, and is the sort of thing that is often reduced when times are tough, as they have been during the Obama Recession.; 1/20/15, 2:04 PM
Jaq said...: Look what television and the movies did to Vaudeville.; 1/20/15, 2:13 PM
Bilwick said...: Ms. Althouse, why do you suppose (judging from the comments here)there is such hostility for artists among your audience? Before the philistines leap on me thinking I'm some "liberal" (i.e., "coercion-addicted, tax-happy, power-tripping State-fellator"), I'm a libertarian (one of those weirdoes who believe their lives belong to themselves), often the only libertarian in the crowd of arts-oriented people I tend to travel with. I'm not looking for the taxpayer to subsidize my artistic expression. Do these people not read novels, admire some paintings or sculpture, go see movies or plays? If so, whence the hostility to the people who produce them.; 1/20/15, 2:44 PM
Todd said...: I can't speak for anyone but myself (and I know you didn't ask me, you asked Ann but, since you did ask) I don't "hate" artists or anyone else. What I find distasteful is the sense of entitlement that many in the "art" world seem to posses. That they have a right to pursue their art on my dime. That their art and by extension they themselves are above petty capitalistic soiling until they don't get the money and/or fame that they KNOW they are owed. Then it is why don't people recognize how good I am and shower me with {money / fame / accolades / whatever they lack}. That is what chaps my @ss.; 1/20/15, 3:02 PM
Todd said...: I get just as peeved when a reporter sticks their mic in the face of a Hollywood celeb and asks them about {economy / science / politics / environment / etc.} simply because they are famous verses knowledgeable in the area they were asked about. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when it is given extra weight simply because they are famous, not because they are a subject matter expert, then we are living in Idiocracy.; 1/20/15, 3:09 PM
furious_a said...: "I get the feeling so many of these complaining artists want to earn a living regardless of merit..."

The Florentine and Venetian masters found willing patrons, why can't this lot?; 1/20/15, 3:10 PM
Kirk Parker said...: I don't see any hostility toward artists qua artists here. It seems all directed at the whiny subset.; 1/20/15, 3:21 PM
Jaq said...: Do these people not read novels, admire some paintings or sculpture, go see movies or plays? If so, whence the hostility to the people who produce them.

I love art and artists, well, with a heavy dependence on my perception of quality of the work.

Shakespeare managed to get rich making great art and giving the people what they wanted. So have uncounted others in human history. So many artists seem to think that popular approbation is a negative indicator of quality. Fine. Don't whine about the lack of money.

Just stop complaining that the life you have chosen hasn't made you rich. At least don't complain to us, sign better contracts.

Or do we go for price supports for art? You know, like Milk Producers? Declare a right to be an artist? The Netherlands did that a couple of decades ago. A jury would decide if you had the chops to be a painter, and if they said yes, the govt would buy all of your unsold art and put it in a warehouse. So other people who did hard jobs they hated to feed their families had to contribute tax money to pay these "artists."; 1/20/15, 3:25 PM
Paco Wové said...: "If the artists starve, we'll all go hungry."

Assertion without evidence. Anyway, I'm willing to take that chance.; 1/20/15, 3:27 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: Chadwick:

Do these people not read novels, admire some paintings or sculpture, go see movies or plays? If so, whence the hostility to the people who produce them.

I am happy to support artists in a market context, by buying copies of their works and so on. And if there were artists nearby me whose work I enjoyed, and whom I did not dislike personally (for one can enjoy an artist's work while thinking him absolutely vile on a personal level), I would be happy to give him a bit extra to show my appreciation.

But when considering artists as a class I have absolutely no inclination to rejigger the market to divert more money in their general direction. And really, why should I? Unless I am commissioning the work -- and so many of the great works of the past were created on commission -- I'm not sure what the point of spending the extra money is. If anything, the people who commission work nowadays are too passive about it and let the artist slide by with any old dreck. Artists have their own idea of what would be their best work if they were freed of all pettifogging commercial constraints, but like as not that turns out to be the equivalent of Battlefield Earth.; 1/20/15, 4:20 PM
Michael said...: Chadwick

I spend a couple of hundred dollars a month on books. I hope the authors are getting their fair cut. I buy them here via the Amazon link. I hope Althouse is getting her cut for providing the link.

I don't buy any, or many, crappy books of which there are a gazillion. Maybe others do.

I have great love of great artists, some love for mediocre artists and no love for crappy artists.

Same as it always was; 1/20/15, 6:48 PM
RecChief said...: man, is that chick channeling Nancy Pelosi? Wasn't that one of Nancy's reasons for passing obamacare? by alleviating the worry of getting healthcare you could throw your cares away and become an artist? surely there is a youtube clip floating around; 1/20/15, 7:32 PM
jr565 said...: Artists should make money for stuff people consume. unless they give it away. Only they should have the right to decide how their work is disseminated.

Taylor Swift makes terrible music. But I'd take her over 1,000 megauploads and piracy advocates.
Sick and tired of subsidizing other peoples viewing though my purchases.

And i hate much of hollywood.; 1/20/15, 10:15 PM
jr565 said...: "Bruce Hayden wrote:
"A lot of things going on here, but much of it seems to be whining about how the digital world has made bricks and mortar businesses obsolete. The advantage to the rest of us is that it is much more efficient - why pay for all those stores, employees, etc., if you can download it off the Internet (hopefully after paying for it), saving all that money formerly spent on intermediaries. So, the middle men are put out of business, and the rest of us, some 300+ Americans, and billions of non-Americans get cheaper music. Often, much cheaper. Giving us more money to spend everywhere else. Its called progress, and is why buggy whip manufacturers went out of business. "

Hopefully after paying for it is the operatiive word. Replacing buggies with cars is great, but not if the cars are being stolen off the lot and people assume they have a free car.
There needs to be a business in place that pays the content makers and not the internet companies at the expense of the content providers.

Apple does it right. You pay for content. The artist gets their cut. That's the way it has to work.; 1/20/15, 10:19 PM
jr565 said...: Jason wrote:
If these royalty rates for electronic delivery are unacceptably low, why did the publishers agree to them? And why aren't artists flocking to publishers who will offer a better deal?

The publishers agreed to them because they got paid, and the artists didn't. And as to why artists aren't flocking to publishers who will offer a better deal, look at Taylor swifit.
She sold 4 million copies of her album so far. That's a far better deal than she'd ever get from Spotify. So why give her stuff away if it only cannibalizes her sales.; 1/20/15, 10:22 PM
stlcdr said...: A crucifix in a bottle of urine.

There's your art right there.; 1/21/15, 4:37 AM
Jaq said...: “Artists should be compensated for their work, but entrance fees should not limit access.” - Ms Eames Armstrong Performance Artist

Ha ha ha ha!; 1/21/15, 7:11 AM
Anthony said...: Artists don't get sympathy during a bad economy because they're always poor-mouthing even when times are good.; 1/21/15, 10:36 AM