Great and beautiful works are produced by artisans in many developing countries for a pittance not because they don't care about money but because they can't get it in any other way. So if they can they send their children to school so that the next generation doesn't have to be starving weavers, woodcarvers, painters, bronze-casters or lacquer-workers, but prosperous engineers, lawyers, accountants and doctors instead. Or even slightly more prosperous clerks and secretaries and shop-workers and teachers.
I do not respect contempt for money on the part of the prosperous.
You know, I don't think Le Guin was being contemptuous of the need for money. ("We who live by writing and publishing want and should demand our fair share of the proceeds" kind of indicates otherwise.)
I think she was saying that money is not the overarching meaning/purpose/point of art and when it becomes the overarching meaning something dies. Once they talk you into focusing exclusively on "monetizing your talent", it becomes much easier to sell you like a stick of deodorant because even you will start to view yourself that way.
On the other hand, I agree that it's a lot easier to have high sentiments about these things when you've gotten both types of rewards and a lot harder when you've gotten neither.
Eh. Making money a god is a surefire route to disillusionment and bad art. (Of course, so is making anything else, but that's a story for another day "whatever thing becomes a god for us; becomes a demon," OWTTE)
But in a civilized, capitalistic society, where the rule of law is respected, money as a benchmark for "people want what I have to offer" is spot on. In an uncivilized society, you're too busy just surviving to Make Art for a living. In a socialist society, whatever the ruling oligarchs view as Valuable to Society as a Whole gets made. Sometimes at gunpoint. (Soviet art: Oy!). In a lawless society, with no shared social capital, artists get robbed blind by the powerful.
In a society where everyone can spend what they want, on what they want, and folks are free to make the art they want whether or not the gatekeepers love them... Romance writers get paid to tell stories, and Twilight makes a mint. But so does Harry Potter. And I get to buy Sherwood Smith and Jagi Lamplighter and Sarah Hoyt books, even if neither of those
( ... )
"But in a civilized, capitalistic society, where the rule of law is respected"
Nice string of modifiers there. I'm not sure it covers any existing society, though. ;)
Also, people offer me money for the things I make all the time. They just don't offer me enough money to live on. Somehow that makes "people want what I have to offer" not quite so exciting as it might otherwise be. You know, as rewards or reasons for bothering with art go.
But, eh, I'm not a writer. I'm just an artist not otherwise specified. What do I know?
I'm in the same boat, art wise. That's why I make a living as a librarian. And support the arts (and artists) when and where I can. But I like that it's my choice, not someone else's.
it's a lot easier to have high sentiments about these things when you've gotten both types of rewards and a lot harder when you've gotten neither.
This. I find myself more and more often in the position of "put your money where your mouth is" - as in, stop telling others how you think things/their life should be, and use your money to help create the world you want.
I think, tying this back to Ursula's point, is that everybody should have the freedom of choice. If they want to go to school, work 80+hours a week as a lawyer and be wealthy, they should have that opportunity. If they want to live in a cottage, eat once a day and make beautiful art, they should have that choice. (Though I would prefer that artisans get paid for their art, and not the middleman who sells it). Being forced to make art because it's either that or starve is every bit as heinous as the "for profit" attitude that regards books as product, controlling their content.
Middle men are incredibly useful, and earn their pay. Middlemen who are gatekeepers are not, but in a free society, their power is limited. I recommend Tom Sowells' Basic Economics or his Migrations and Cultures series for a good overview of the phenomenon.
I think we should all be free to make the choices and accept the consequences of those choices that we want. Here in the U.S. we usually are. Forcing people to purchase (directly or otherwise) what they do not want, don't think they need, and usually at the cost of what they actually do desire is oppressive.
Heh. Define greedy. Do you try to get the best price you can for your books? Or do you volunteer to get paid less, so that someone else can get paid more? Do you sometimes volunteer to pay more when you don't have to, just because you think the work deserves it? Or are you glad when you "luck out" and get a good deal? This kind of behavior is rare, but workable within a community of people who all know each other: see the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Because the middleman (like the banker) has to pay for not just the cost of doing business, but the cost of doing business with con-men and "not-part-of-the-shared-community-of-trust, they frequently charge much more than seems "fair" to the insider. And this common economic misunderstanding, plus the human tendency toward tribalism, explains why middlemen are often minorities, and frequently subject to pograms
( ... )
I do not respect contempt for money on the part of the prosperous.
Reply
Reply
I think she was saying that money is not the overarching meaning/purpose/point of art and when it becomes the overarching meaning something dies. Once they talk you into focusing exclusively on "monetizing your talent", it becomes much easier to sell you like a stick of deodorant because even you will start to view yourself that way.
On the other hand, I agree that it's a lot easier to have high sentiments about these things when you've gotten both types of rewards and a lot harder when you've gotten neither.
Reply
Reply
But in a civilized, capitalistic society, where the rule of law is respected, money as a benchmark for "people want what I have to offer" is spot on. In an uncivilized society, you're too busy just surviving to Make Art for a living. In a socialist society, whatever the ruling oligarchs view as Valuable to Society as a Whole gets made. Sometimes at gunpoint. (Soviet art: Oy!). In a lawless society, with no shared social capital, artists get robbed blind by the powerful.
In a society where everyone can spend what they want, on what they want, and folks are free to make the art they want whether or not the gatekeepers love them... Romance writers get paid to tell stories, and Twilight makes a mint. But so does Harry Potter. And I get to buy Sherwood Smith and Jagi Lamplighter and Sarah Hoyt books, even if neither of those ( ... )
Reply
Nice string of modifiers there. I'm not sure it covers any existing society, though. ;)
Also, people offer me money for the things I make all the time. They just don't offer me enough money to live on. Somehow that makes "people want what I have to offer" not quite so exciting as it might otherwise be. You know, as rewards or reasons for bothering with art go.
But, eh, I'm not a writer. I'm just an artist not otherwise specified. What do I know?
Reply
Reply
This. I find myself more and more often in the position of "put your money where your mouth is" - as in, stop telling others how you think things/their life should be, and use your money to help create the world you want.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I think we should all be free to make the choices and accept the consequences of those choices that we want. Here in the U.S. we usually are. Forcing people to purchase (directly or otherwise) what they do not want, don't think they need, and usually at the cost of what they actually do desire is oppressive.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment