Rai-key (rai_key) wrote,
Rai-key
rai_key

  • Mood:

Should artists work for free?

Maria Brophy wrote a blog about this question and it sparked a logical approach to this question.
(If you want to read her post, click here
Assuming art is needed for society, then should artists be paid?
They should, because it gives them more time to hone their craft. It gives us incentive to keep creating and go through school, because we can see it will eventually pay off. It breeds competition and competition breeds a certain standard. So much of art history is created by artists who either figured out a way to prioritize art or to prioritize making money so they can eventually create art. Going back to the idea that it takes 10,000 hours to hone a craft, how does the math work out on this?
To make it fair the amount of hours dedicated on work are the same.
If I spent 40 hours a week serving tables and 20 hours a week making art it would take me 10 and a half years to reach the 10,000 hour goal.
If I spent 60 hours a week helping a graphics design company it would take me 3 and half years to reach the 10,000 hour goal.
So it would take about a third as long to achieve my goal if anyone gave me the chance to develop my art.

Right now, artists pay to go to school, usually working another job. We develop portfolios to show the world in order to market ourselves. All this work, so we can maybe have a chance at the same handful of jobs. A few luck out and end up in galleries, others go to grad school to either become teachers or compete for gallery shows. The only area demand is increasing is graphics design & maybe blogs.
Tags: art, paid, pay artists, pay me, starving artist
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 8 comments