Paying an artist isn't charity.
My good buddy S'Perry has a bit of a rant here about why writers need to be paid for their work, and why book piracy is bad. I have a bone to pick with him, though.
Of course I agree that people ought to pay creators for their work.
This includes actors and singers, even Big Name ones who have plenty of money. It includes writers like JK Rowling, who are, literally, richer than the Queen.
Why? Because they deserve it. Paying an artist isn't charity. If you make the argument that they ought to be paid because otherwise Oh Woe They Cannot Eat, you are devaluing their work.
They ought to be paid because their work has value. Because they created a product--a story, a song, a performance--that the purchaser wanted. They should be paid for the exact same reason someone who runs a restaurant or does your taxes should be paid: you want the thing they're selling.
Stealing from JK Rowling may be the scale-equivalent of stealing from Wal*Mart, but neither is morally justifiable.
Paying a self-published author is the scale-equivalent of shopping at a local mom-and-pop store, and I'm sure no one's too proud to refuse money, whatever your motive for giving it to them. But do it because you want what they're selling. "What they're selling" may include "personalized service" or "non-predatory business practices"--principles have financial value, too. You may have a personal motivation aside from the specific item or art you're buying ("I want more variety in the world"), and are willing to spend money to encourage it. That is value you're purchasing, not a favor you're doing for the downtrodden.
Viewing payment for an artist's work as a favor you do for them leads to the kind of thinking that prompts Neil Gaiman to write a screed on the theme of "George RR Martin is not your bitch."
Artists are devalued for two reasons:
1. Every idiot thinks they can make art. Many of them can make some sort of art, and many of them even can do it reasonably well. Most of learned to finger-paint as children. Most of us learned years ago to put words together as a means of communication. Many people can howl lyrics reasonably on-key, and do so frequently at religious services, sporting events, or to entertain their children. Virtually everyone is capable of playing make-believe, even if they haven't done it since they were a small child.
In fact, we associate most artistic endeavors--dancing, singing, drawing, story telling--with childhood. Perhaps this is why people don't value it.
2. Art is pretty far down the hierarchy of needs. We all like to think that art is essential to life, but the reality is that humans are pretty much the only species that we're certain makes it. There are some others--bower birds come to mind--that seem to have an aesthetic sensibility, but it's mostly used for attracting a mate or other practical purpose, not for the sheer enjoyment of it. (If we think of "art" as an expression of "play" we get more species in the set.)
Fact is, when money is tight, people will curtail their recreation--including art and other forms of play--before they'll curtail their food. Given a choice between paying one's rent or buying a new book, most people will opt for the roof over their head. (What good is a book if you can't keep it dry?)
If we want to improve the perception of artists, we need to quit acting like beggars with our hand out for alms. Ask to be paid because you've produced something of value, not because you're pitiable.