As ever in the digital world, nobody really knows. Yet, arcane and complex though it is, the status of copyright law is now one of the most important problems facing our culture. On one side are the old media players, whose instinctive response is to extend legal protection as far as possible. (Jack Valenti, the late boss of the Motion Picture Association of America, was once asked how long copyright should last. Forever minus one day, he replied.) On the other side are the internet radicals who would make everything free, and who ignore the fact that this would all but destroy the incentive to create.
If there were no money in art, would any body do it? Or would only those who really cared or were otherwise driven do it? Would this result in simply less art or better art?
It would probably lead to MORE art, but not to better art. Art is already the precinct of the privileged class on account of it being so unremunerative. If it becomes even less unremunerative, then it would no doubt become even more attractive to the privileged class.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't thought of that.
ReplyDeleteWhat DD said. Well, to a point. The privileged classes typically are art BUYERS, not usually art producers.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, speaking as an artist, I categorically deny that the primary reason artists make art, starting with myself, is to make money. In fact, I do make some level of money from my creativity—I always have. But that's not why I make my art. I make my art to make my art. It's as necessary as breathing.
Nothing economic will ever destroy the incentive to create. That's completely missing the point. You'll never hear any artist say that. Many artists don't make a (substantial) living from their art, so economics was never the incentive to begin with. Many of them make art because it's as necessary to them as breathing. A writer friend of mine defines it this way: "A writer is someone whose first response to life is to write about it." For me, it's music, visual art, writing, usually in that order. My first response to life is to make art about it.
What I do as an arts businessman is to then try to find a way to make my living from my creativity—in other words, from doing what I would do anyway. What I would be doing even if I didn't make a living from it. Economics enters my artistic life simply on the level that I'm not really good at anything other than making art, so I just try to "Follow my bliss" (Joe Campbell) and "Do what you love, the money will follow" (Marsha Sinetar). I just try to make both converge.
If there was no money in art—and there already isn't much money in art, except for the small group of artists ranging from Picasso to Tony Bennett—of course people would still do it. Because it's their response to life, and experience, and faith, and life.
And then there's the leisure hobbyists, like weekend painters, who might consider themselves artists, but whom I would still call creatives. Again, they're not affected by economic considerations to begin with, so what would change? Nothing.
The really funny part about this is that no artist would ever ask these questions, or make these kinds of statements. LOL They'd just look at you, and go back to making art.