Don't ever believe it. Artists deserve compensation for a skill that many of them have worked a lifetime for.
From This Post. First someone says something careless:
__________________________________________________________
CupcakeHallucinogen
I can understand what you're saying, but I personally don't like the concept of putting a price on art.
It's for the enjoyment of others.
That's fine if that's what you want for your own art, but if you're saying that other artists' works should all follow that idea, that's bunk.
MY art isn't for the universal enjoyment of others. I've got every right to make it for my own purposes and intent. Art skill is something I've spent my entire life cultivating, and I'm paying thousands of dollars to advance my skills, so... I'm to be expected to hand it out? Be flattered that someone doesn't value it enough to compensate my time and effort? Total garbage. You don't hear about Michelangelo, or Da Vinci dealing with this-- all the old masters were commissioned. Funding is what allowed artists to progress and develop new techniques.
And then it turns downright stupid:
__________________________________________________________
CupcakeHallucinogen
I know it'll never happen, but think of how much better the world would be without money.
Without money, there is less competition, and hence less innovation. One could babble on about how it's be so great to be handed everything you need, but the problem with that idea is... SOMEONE has to do all the work in order to just "give people what they need". It doesn't fall out of the damned sky.
One has to understand what money is-- a standardized system of trade for products and services. It's easier to trade ten bucks for a book, as opposed to calculating how much jerky you need to haul to Barnes & Noble to take home a few magazines. Money, itself, is an innovation; it is efficient, and just because a minority goes to dishonest means to acquire it DOES NOT EQUATE MONEY WITH EVIL, nor does it make people who pursue it evil.
The idea that we all should just get handed what we need is so unrealistic, and an absolute detriment to human progress. Someone's gotta farm, sew the clothes, build the homes, protect us wild animals, etc. A negligent "parent" hands their child everything they need instead of teaching them to make things for his/herself, and to work and take care of his/herself. We have the luxury of things like education, entertainment, and philanthropy, because we're able to fulfill our basic needs better than ancestors, BECAUSE of innovation created through commerce and competition.
Such is in the case of art, too. Without funding and patronage I shudder to think about how far back we'd be, art-wise. Drawing without innovations like linear perspective, or painting without having mass-produced paint that I can just pick up at the art store, for example. Without the consumer-driven and funded art of the Renaissance, like, say, in 15th century Flanders where for the first time commonfolk can commission portraits and other work, there would be less of an emphasis on accurate realism. Just an example. What the hell else motivates us as people?
The desire for the acquisition of money is rooted in a primal desire to stay alive-- hunt and gather food, protect yourself in shelter. Collect money and fund food, shelter, and security with money. The MONEY, or the existence of it isn't evil. What SOME people do for it is. It's not evil to want to work for compensation-- that's a fair exchange. Is it really unfair to work harder and hence deserve more for that work? How does man fulfill his/her potential without incentives for this? We don't.
Being naive about the world doesn't make you a better artist.
