Why must artists be poor? | Hadi Eldebek
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 04. 2018
- The arts bring meaning to our lives and spirit to our culture -- so why do we expect artists to struggle to make a living? Hadi Eldebek is working to create a society where artists are valued through an online platform that matches artists with grants and funding opportunities -- so they can focus on their craft instead of their side hustle.
Check out more TED Talks: www.ted.com
The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.
Follow TED on Twitter: / tedtalks
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / ted
The last guy that got rejected from art school started World War II.
Dead Joffrey 😂😂😂😂
😂😂🙌
😄😄
Art is creativity. Like one famous scientist said one day: “Creativity is intelligence having fun.” How boring and depressing would be to live in a world that the only things that matter are just the basic things. Let’s just all live through the veggies, fruit and water because chocolate, ice cream and wine are so unnecessary! 😌
Dani Carvalho nice way of putting it. 😊
Nakamura Michiko thank you! It’s because I’m an artist. ❤️
quote you put here is so truee!
he said "perhaps creativity is intelligence having fun". Big difference
chocolate, ice cream and wine are also luxuries that poor people will not want to subsidize
I think we need a new industry related to the arts, not JUST funding- like a marketing company for artists; agents that find the right clientele for the right artists and connect them with their audience along with the funding that will enable them to produce for their crowd.
Unfortunately, the mindset of many artists (especially musicians) is that if they utilize outside help to sell their work, or if they start creating things specific to what people like, they've "sold out". The starving artist phenomenon is not just an economic one, it has become cultural. Art is passion and money is power, and a lot of people see those 2 things as conflicting motivators. They don't have to be!
Because they take a risk and create something no one has asked for initially, hoping that when it is seen, someone will pay for it. I like art a lot, and it is important, but also simply hard to make a living out of. Normal business are succesful because they do the opposite. They usually create or sell stuff they know a lot of people want.
Jacco Stoete i don't think this is accurate. Seasoned artists know what their audience is expecting, and create more of what sells (that's why Jay-z, Alex Grey, & Steven Spielberg don't change their style much), but some artists are more niche and experimental. The real reason why artists don't make enough money, is lack of proper exposure, and sometimes, it is nothing but a sheer lack of funding for materials or equipment holding them back (can you imagine Steven Spielberg films without the millions to fund the production? Nobody would watch that!)
I think we need a new industry related to the arts, not JUST funding- like a marketing company for artists; agents that find the right clientele for the right artists and connect them with their audience along with the funding that will enable them to produce for their crowd.
Not any harder than trying to start any other business.
*Normal businesses sell stuff they can monetize. A lot of people want roads, but relatively few roads are toll roads because you need a road that is easy to keep non-payers off of but still useful for getting somewhere. So instead governments tend to build roads with tax money taken from everybody. Sort of like what this guy is talking about.*
*So, in that light, digital media can be very easily shared for free in its original form. Or sometimes sold by an unauthorized distributor who's stolen it. Plagiarization exists. If you make a sculpture, everyone who passes by will see it, not just the person who commissioned it. People may not want art as much as they want an iPhone, but they still want it. Part of the problem is that it's so hard to protect intellectual property.*
*As a result, so much art has to be commissioned. One rich person or entity that wants something specific really badly will pay a bunch of money for it, after which it will often be shared where it can be enjoyed by everyone for free or at least be very easily stolen. Think movie soundtracks. TV commercials. Logos. Public art installations. Making art so popular that it can drive its own demand is very rare indeed.*
*But, yeah, I'm an engineer. Full-time art is probably not the smartest field to get into. It's probably like teaching: It's a career that's very visible to children and teens, so it's a career that people are disproportionately drawn to. Kids know rock stars. They've seen movies.They've seen cartoons. They probably have no idea what their own parents do.*
I think it's more of a "people need more roads and nurses, than artists in terms of survival"
@@RebeccahKahn if you say artists need MORE exposure for profit. Then why have artists earning continually gone down as communication avenues grow? With the radio and TV and internet we've seen MORE art. And more poor artists. Its not about exposure. Its does a culture value self inspection. Thats the only predictor you need for artists income in an area.
He didn't really speak on why we must be poor.
Because art is not as important as something like engineering or medicine or running a business. Those things advance society, art is just a product of society. People that make big bucks do thing that drive innovation
papabeanguy Art is not only a product of society and if you think art didnt evolve societies, then you just show your ignorance about history and how art is linked to science through all the ages of mankind.
Its naive to say what you said.
Urelasir Art did not cure disease, art did not cause all of the technology we have today. Sure art can cause social change but the fails in comparison to things the technology, medicine, and business have accomplished. That is why artist do not make as much as people that drive innovation and society. Also art is most definitely a product of society, art is always influenced by society.
papabeanguy Art caused alot of technology. Many artists were also engineers and architects, and also philosophers, and many have changed people minds and caused paradigms to fall and be reborn. They do alot socially also.
Now to say that all artists and art in general are helping society would be dumb and naive, but the same goes for saying that art doesnt help mankind lile science and other fields do. Life is not so black and white and it also doesnt work in absolutes..
In relation to how much artists are payed or not payed is also not has simplistic as you put it, like many other professions arent either. Architects can have a pretty big salary, and they do art that is expressed in its creations which are buildings, but they have to be "lucky" and know the right people to actually get a job in the industry. Most architects or are unable to find a job or they get noticed or lucky by working has an assistant for an architect company or they are screwed over because other people know the right people and they might not even have that much of a talent.
Each profession in arts is different and it has its own unique problems and lack of support from the state and what they give to mankind is quite important and much more than what your view of it is, which I consider a simplistic perspective of Art in general and how important it is for mankind.
And yes, Art is influenced by society but Art also influences society, in many many fields.
Also Art is one of those things that people take for granted, and im sure if it was gone or less of it, you and I, mostly everyone would be miserable.
Not true. In fact, much of engineering, medicine or running a business depends on the artistic mind throwing their minds out into the darkness and coming back with truth...truth that breaks open vision and allows each to see something new and maybe even possible.
Soo, he left the music career to create a financial platform... :)
It's probably an even bigger struggle for him doing that, though.
At least he is way more useful to the artist society.
Guess now his plan A is salesman
Art has nothing to do with commerce. There is no "demand" for the "product". The soul is not a commodity.
*I must say that, while being a full-time artist helps you excel in technical aspects of your art: physically drawing, playing an instrument, working efficiently, etc., I subscribe to the notion that actual creativity benefits greatly from someone being a part-time artist only, so that they have a greater variety of real-life experiences to draw inspiration from.*
*Otherwise you get a fuckton of media about the day-to-day struggles of being a writer/actor/musician/animator/whatever. Struggles that nobody knows except for people who've seen all of the rest of the media about the exact same thing.*
Making art is fun. We all want to do it. That's why the field doesn't pay well. Literally everyone wants that job. My second point would be that poor, or recently struggling, artist make good art. Comfortable or rich artists almost never make good art.
It's funny because he brought out the US military spending budget and said how productive 5 basis points were if spent on art. Now imagine if they were granted to NASA, tech companies or hospitals. How would that compare to it going to fund art?
How about properly fund both sectors. Ever been a patient in a hospital with no Art on the walls…pretty drab experience.
Artists are in many ways similar to entrepreneurs. Their rates of success should be largely similar.
It's true that in Europe we have more fundings. But it's a lot more difficult to make money legally as an artist. In Spain working as creative freelancer, I must pay 300$ every month to be economically active and 70$ for an administrator, regardless if I make money or not. That's every single month without exception. If I buy a laptop for work that costs 900$, I can not even deduct that cost in a year (must be deducted in two years). BTW, the tax is 45% if you make 60K a year, and don't forget there is also 21% VAT. The paperworks is making everything very difficult to maintain an active professional life, not to mention the hard-to-deduct tax system. There is no special provision for creative freelancers. Sometimes I'd rather Europe didn't give out grants to SOME artists, but just gave tax cuts to ALL artists.
Arts is an unorganised sector. Every other industry has a well defined process and make products which have specific use. Art is an endeavour in which the end product is a creative piece which is novel and unique. Ther can never be an industry around it. And if there ever will be an industry it will turn art into a commodity which could hardly be called art anymore.
I use to be a chemical engineering major before switching to art/tech degree. The tech side, luckily, will help me in the future but outside of our art bubble... We are undervalued and because we are undervalued, many people see it as we should be working for next to nothing at our craft. So many artists being harassed because theyre commissions are too expensive (even if its 50 dollars) and so many artists purposefully undervalue their work to get commissions while also going to school and/or having a job because they dont want to go through that hassle or being worried someone will try to rip them off. It shouldnt have to be like that, but it will be so long as artists arent seen as a valuable part of society, despite art being a staple in many aspects of life like music, architecture, games, movies, photography, fashion, writing, theater, etc. These mediums have powerful uses, capable of bring people together. To make them smile. To feel something.
That shouldnt be undervalued.
TheMaddies agreed!
You're not undervalued. The market decides value at any given point in time, and the results are in! lol
Art is not undervalued. It is valued at exactly the amount that the market decides. It is not a special category. Sport brings people together. Religion brings people together. Gardening brings people together. There is no more pressing reason to fund artists than gardeners. The only special thing about people who describe themselves as artists is their narcissism - and unethical standards in wanting to take money by force (i.e. government funding) from productive people.
Art is one of the MOST important activities a human being can engage in...
The reason there's not more money in the Arts is because people simply aren't willing to pay a lot of money for it. The demand isn't there. It's simply not valued by the common person. When most people are concerned about paying rent and bills, spending money on musical concerts is going to be way low at the bottom of the list. As much as I appreciate the Arts, there's simply way more important things for the government to be spending tax dollars on. I take issue with the speaker associating the word fairness with this issue. The state of the Arts is not unfair at all. It is simply the result of an open and free market economy in the United States. There's nothing unfair about the Arts being low-paying, because the supply is high and the demand is low. That is basic economics.
Very interesting talk! Funding is just one of the solution for starving/emerging or working artists. Having a sustainable income without the aid of government or private foundations seem to be a better solution. We surveyed over 400 artists online and found out that more than 60% of artists do not make a living on their art, and more than half of them do not have a website. Marketing and communication training for artists could also help solving this problem like you do for SMEs. In fact, artists in many countries when economically active, are considered SMEs.
Art in todays society is better suited to be in the entertainment or marketing industry. This is no longer the renaissance age or the enlightenment, right now the world is more materialistic and have no need of expensive art that will end up just as a display with no other use.
The artist whose art is well liked isn't poor. The reason most artist are poor is because there are a lot more whose work doesn't resonate with the masses. Providing funding for these people is just taking money from productive people and giving it to people who aren't doing much to benefit society and it may encourage some to go into art when they would be more productive as a ditch digger.
Yes and no. The problem is that there are artists who are super well of, but this is just a very very narrow group. And a lot of people creating indeed valuable pieces are excluded from these circles.
Wow…as an artist who makes niche art, I feel hurt and feel like that’s just how it is at the same time. Like everything I’ve created in my whole life from childhood,…I should have better used my time as a ditch digger
Arts primary use comes from it being a social touchstone, a shared experience people can use as a foundation of social interaction.
That means art is more valuable the more well known and popular it is. Thus a few artists make ridiculous amounts of money and the rest almost none.
There is also almost no barrier to entry, everyone can try to make art with today's technology. Thus supply of new art to discover is very high and demand low as demand doesn't increase until something becomes popular or fashionable.
Great explanation! Thank you
Because supply is high and demand is low
Thank you for saving me the effort to state the obvious.
and because most "art" is considered ugly. Why should society pay for people who make ugly art? Or should I quit my job and make ugly art and then expect society to pick up the tab?
Nah, its not only that. Culture its different today, in the capitalism art is always trying to sell something not itself.
I wouldn't necessarily say demand for art is low in the U.S. This guy is a musician and calls himself an artist. I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of musicians in the U.S. who make more money than anybody can by working as an engineer. Engineering is just a lower risk-lower reward profession.
Demand is high, but the perception is that artist enjoy what they do, therefore they assume that artists don’t care if they are economically secure, only if they get “exposure”
This problem can only be solved by UBI( Universal basic income).
I appreciate humans like Hadi.
I will go ahead and fill you in on this. Its because they are a luxurious attribute to society. And without functional use an artist can not activate himself in society without intense magnitude.
I'm not a artist, but it makes me feel mad that nowdays world is so focused on war and defense. Slowly but surely trying to disassociate people from who they're. And that's what art is right? To express what you feel, who you're and inspire others to find themselves my the piece of art. That's why art should be supported way more.
As a struggling artist .. Thank you ! And grantpa here i come
Information is what people need to be what ever they wants.
I daily fantasize about talking this topic as a speech, either in my college or in ted. Today I have found a video that suited my fantasy. I also wanted to be a creative artist, but I have to make another plan B and live on it. Someday I will be recognized as an artist. That day, I will resign my engineering job!!! Well, I am still a 12th standard student but I understood this long ago.
There is a big potential in arts, but not in the way he is thinking of.
Arts provide two main things in society: getting things interested in a lot of stuff (even mathematics and physics) and giving people outside hope, that life is interesting even at your work desk.
But in my opinion a lot of artist don't provide really valuable art. Art should be definitely get payd, but not because they are just simple artists, but because they create valuable art.
In video game industry many artists have stable financial status or even a very well paid job. You can create art for the mass and art for the highly educated few at the same time if you want. But one step at a time.
Contrary to popular opinion, it is social perception that places the value on art.
Example: Firms find it very profitable to market technology because they can profit from it and more readily control its development whereas with artists they have less control. Think Picasso or Lichtenstein. Artists can unfavorably reflect on the institutions that may desire to otherwise support them.
If more artists could afford marketing firms upfront, the demand for the various arts and artists would change.
0:12 0:27 1:01 0:40
1:10 1:32 1:40 1:43 2:02
2:09. 2:14
3:22 3:46 3:51
4:40 5:00
What's the point of curing disease, technological innovation, and national defense if a society has no art or culture worth celebrating or enjoying?
Curing diseases is useless? When it comes to that, is a different story. Art is much important than a one person life? Talent is important but comparing it to life is stupid.
@@joannam6093 what is life without art and expression?
I'm pretty confident in saying that art is NEVER a necessity. Nobody's life/livelihood relies on whether or not art exists--not even artists'. I agree that art can have an impact on a civilization's culture, collective soul, or whatever, but at best that makes art a positive externality. Is it important? I think so. Is it NECESSARY? No. It isn't.
David Squires We wouldn t want to live without art because we wouldn t have joy.
Imagine no music, no play, no dance, no beauty, no movies, no theatre, no paintings. No one would or could want to live just to survive, be productive and logical and have responsabilities. Art is why we keep living.
I don't know. That's a really beautiful sentiment, but I think it might be exaggerating a bit. I mean, I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think humanity would commit suicide en masse if all oil paintings were to suddenly disappear. I think when you saw "art is never a necessity", what you read was "art is stupid and inferior to everything." That's not what I'm saying at all. There are all sorts of vitally important things that aren't necessities, like scientific research.
I think its hard for people to imagine how life would be without art. it's all around us all the time and so its taken for granted. The souls of people speak through all art forms. It connects us, it makes us feel and improves our emotional intelligence, and it takes us to different states of consciousness. It's communication even without speaking. It's story telling and each artist has a unique story to tell. Most of all its a channel through which the energy of the universe can express itself through us. In my humble opinion, I think it is necessary.
A significant portion of the world already got what's necessary. Just having what's necessary is not enough.
Even teachers aren't valued by this society. I don't see much hope for artists.
Struggling to get by puts artists in the same boat as most of humanity, which makes what they have to say as artists socially useful.
It is the pain that causes the art
ଭ୍ରୁଗୁରାଜ ପ୍ରଧାନ not true at all. Suffering artists are too depressed to create.
Ted Bolha Really? I've create a lot of music when I've been feeling really sad and it perked me up to continue onward. I wouldn't have had the same motivation or need for the music I made had I not felt that way.
Yep the two are definitely different, but connected. I found though that, when I'm in the "completely immobilized, stuck and can't do a thing" state (whatever that's called) it's the path to a better place. Take that for what it's worth.
haha
As ToastCrafter ! said supply is high, tons of artists are entering into the field, and the demand is low, Not enough people with the disposable income to pay for the art.
It is those that are willing to take a leap of faith that are most likely to reach great heights. Haters will be prominent like my sisters, but then I look at them and they seem not so happy, they seemed miserable and unhealthy. The leap into the umcomfort zone is a must
part of the job of a artist is to ignore money, not looking for it
The reason there are poor artist is because quite frankly, that artist's art sucks. An artist who has art worth paying for finds his way through the financial aspect.
Right on! Is Grantpa coming to the UK? :)
Patreon for artists?
WOOOO!
The problem with grants 1.) it is project based and super competitive. Artist need full time work. It takes money to make money and most grants will not accept an applicant who doesn’t have multiple income streams for a project. 2.) many grants want organizations and not individuals to invest in. 3.) most likely you will need more than one person to help you with the project and that requires money. Money that you need from your pocket, usually before you get the funding. As far as US Culture and government 4.) the US doesn’t see the arts as an economic, diplomatic, or national security force. 5.) the business model of depending on donors and grants is a poor business model. Most art organizations are not able to break even or make profit, which is why they are dependent on donors.
Are you just pitching your fckng platform? Come on TED.
great advertisement... with a personal story
Because some artists are crafters and think they are artists. Plus, the right explanation is in the “PARETO PRINCIPLE”.
Government money means government strings. Government money for artists? Not unless you want art to become irrelevant to society and its issues.
So rather artists should start sell their works for money launderers?
With title being a question I expected an answer. Not more questions. Grampa is patreon duplicate . Pointless talk
I’m a circus artist and sometimes it’s so hard to find a good job or full time job,we have to work hard to improve us to be deemed as the best,here are many good countries on this world for circus artists but not all countries will accept us if we do the same tricks or do trick that has been deemed as a hard trick,so this world doesn’t rly know how hard artist should work!
Because its not important when the 3rd world is suffering. When we should be investing in science, technology and creative ideas to get people out of poverty and suffering. Although 'medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.' Its about priority.
Feroz Shadowfax love?
They don't need to be mutually exclusive. Lots of inventions comes out of art projects and further serve medical and technological needs. I don't think government should provide for artists, but artists shouldn't be ridiculed for having less money and instead should be encouraged to combine their creativity with something that can be useful to others (directly or indirectly).
The problem with how people are uneasy with the state funding of artists is simple. When most people go to work they often have to follow certain rules. They have respond to things such as a boss, clients or the demands of the market to remain competitive and in business. They have to generate value somewhere. This means they more often than not will have to work hard, be productive, generate a minimum quality of work and will have force themselves to do things they otherwise wouldn't want to like get up early in the morning. Hired or commissioned artists fall within this category as well.
Artists who are being funded regardless of the value of what they produce do not have to follow these rules. They can essentially do what they feel like doing at any moment with no regards of attempting of generating anything that is of actual value for those who fund them. This inherently makes it feel a lot more like leisure than actual work worthy of pay.
The poor artists are the ones who carry a big ego, who create 'art' and then demand others praise it.
If you create things other people like, they will give you money for it. It's why a lot of creative types are using Patreon or other crowdfunding platforms.
It's your portfolio that matters, not your education. I never went to any kind of art school and I make art for my living. If you get good enough there will be far more demand for your work that you could ever possibly hope to supply. That's the critical mass part of being an artist. You need to put things out there, and you need to put it out frequently enough so that other people pay attention.
Art is subjective, and so is comedy; but imagine if comedians were subsidized! We'd be drowning in knock-knock and fart jokes and actual talented comics would struggle to get noticed because people will simply dismiss the whole comedy scene for being childish. Kinda like what 'modern' art is these days, since a lot of times it's literally garbage; and it's just a bunch of egotistical artists praising each other's own farts while the people looking at it don't find any actual joy in it, they just want to be part of the 'cultured club.'
The ultimate reality of being an artist is that you need to be laser focused on a small target audience if you want to be successful. Every time any art that is produced in any kind of media that tries to cater to the largest and lowest common denominator it ultimately is forgotten, because it is bland and generic; it's a piece of white bread. It might be the best piece of white bread in the world, but it's still plain and boring.
rahn45 VERY WELL SAID! love this!
Your words sound jealous somehow.
Jealous of what? Certainly not the guy in the talk who is aspiring to be an 'artist' but doesn't present any of his work. It's all speculation but I suspect no one wants to pay any money for whatever his art is. He's pushing for something that already exists: Crowdfunding.
He doesn't seem to have any experience as an artist because being poor is probably the easiest hurdle to overcome. The hardest one is to actually get yourself to work on your craft, all the time, as much as you can. To overcome your own self-doubt, to compare your work to what you've done before and not to people who are ahead of you in your ability. To not let your own sense of creativity be trampled on in an effort to cater to what others want from you. To be able to manage your own focus, motivation, and to avoid burnout.
If you create something that can elicit any kind of emotion from other people on a consistent and regular basis, a fan base will form around you. The Internet has thousands of artists who make a living from the fan bases they've created around themselves: Music, animation, comics, drawings, stories, comedy, acting, speaking, construction; it's all already there.
The people who don't make it are the ones who do it chasing dollar signs instead of following their own passions. There's a lot of people out there and a lot of artistic niches, a lot of them who work a job and work on their art; and once they reach that fan base critical mass they can do art full time as their living.
This guy didn't make it as an artist, and instead of looking inwards to see how he could improve himself, he's blaming the system; it's pitiful.
rahn45 absolutely. Bare facts.
Sometimes...we do things that do not include showing off our work.
if you look closely at 6:21.....the guy to the left with glasses.....is brother number 2.
People don't pay or appreciate a persons art until that artist becomes famous. Neither do people buy toys (cars, motorhomes ETC) unless it will be the envy of many.
In other words. It's not about the pleasure that art brings or possessions bring. Rather, it is about showing off and looking important to your neighbors.
The US doesn't support the arts well because the arts won't instill fear and awe in the other nations.
If your priority is toward what makes you feel good, you'll pay for quality and what speaks to your soul. If you want to be great in the eyes of your neighbors, you'll go for fads, popularity and quantity.
Because the demand and IMPORTANCE of and for art is significantly less than for food and technology. There is this thing called the market that rewards those that benefit the people. Artists don't provide a service that people want enough to pay much for. It is not the government's place to subsidise art. You are demanding an entity to steal money from me and give it to you because according to you I am not smart enough to appreciate your "art", whatever it is. I must point out that some forms of art are very much in demand: film, music, etc. You say art brings meaning, which is true. But when you say art, you are talking about forms of art that don't really bring much meaning and therefore nobody really wants it.
Tough love, mister
I got music on the radio in Barbados, music streams world wide i aint made 20 us yet....pain
who tf is an artist and is expecting a salary from the government?? foh
lol
It felt like I just finished watching half a talk.
For the future artist, industrial cultural law of art is needed. Not only governments of all around the world but also civil will try to change their thoughts that artist is not a rich job and help art and artist for their survival. For more than years , if we don’t take any action about art , our art will eventually disappear from us. So I think ‘grantpa’ is a good challenge..
Hope that artist is stable job in the future..
-ㄱㄷㅇ-
Sweet sentiment, but badly misunderstanding economics. There is apparently not enough demand for his art. There is plenty of demand for arts in general, evidenced by many wealthy musicians, performers, and studio artists, but most of the money goes to the few who become well known. It is not an issue of no one paying for the arts.
Yaaaaaay
If you want other people to give you their money, you have to do something that they are willing to pay you for. Why should I work so an artist can stay home and paint, sculpt or sing? What about my dreams? That's my money you're taxing. Keep your hands off of it! I want to spend it. It's mine. I earned it when I did something that someone was willing to pay for. I don't mind paying taxes to make sure someone who's mentally or physically handicapped or is temporarily out of a job doesn't starve. But artists are capable of working like the rest of us. Should society pay me to quit my job and stay at home, building my hot rod car that I've always dreamed of? Society can look at it as I drive around and be fulfilled with cultural sole and flavor. It will be shiny red and truely a work of art. Do you think everyone should pay me to stay home all day and build hot rods?
If you want other peoole to give you their money, you have to do something that they are willing to pay you for.
Almost no one wants your art besides you. That's why it's so hard to make a living at it.
That's what I would tell my brother if he were to become an artist.
I think earning money is one of the aspects for art. The important part is to having fun and be satisfied with art🎨🎺🎺🎻
"Art" is just another world for love
Being a good artist doesn’t matter unless you’re a great business person.
Unless you make art for fun, then you’re better off avoiding the pipe dream unless it pulls you in.
And that is exactly the problem.
A really talented artist no need to worry about money i think
Despite the undeniable importance of music, dancing, painting, sculpture, writing and acting arts for the definition of a society's culture, if an artist's skills in those areas is not desirable enough so that people WANT to spend money to consume what the artist has to offer, should our taxes fund undesirable works? It may take time for an artist to develop desirable skills, but it also takes time to research technology that has potential to make our lives better, I think it is only expectable that arts' budget is miniscule compared to other areas.
Regardless, that app is one great solution that helps joining suppliers and consumers.
Being able to paint / play a musical instrument etc is it’s own reward.If orchestras were that popular there would be more of them without a handout from the taxpayer
There are many kinds of artists in the world but they don't live happy life.
Because most of artists work hard but they don't get enough salary.
Many of artists work for there dream not for money.
Only a few of famous people are recognized and get a high salary, others live in poor.
So working as a common artist is not good way to live stable life.
However, the social viewpoint's in art are negative and the goverment support are not enough. I think in order to develop in art, people need to pay attention and watch the show frequently and also change our mind positively
Because what you think might be great art actually sucks and nobody wants it. I am a good guitar player and create good paintings but I know they are not good enough for me to make a living.
Ever heard of commissions?
Their website won't accept sign-ups. This should be taken down.
entrepreneurship combination should work
maybe.....i need the subtitle
Wanted to become and artist and now an entrepreneur. You see why they aren't valued enough?
OMF GoD
I want gov to give me your stolen money, because art is not capitalism compatible.
And I say, No More!
No more do I want to see artists having to work as if they were normal humans; and all that because they have to pay, for things!
When will you learn?!
If only 0,5% of all that stolen work was given to us, than we wouldn’t have to work ourselves! Imagine what 1% could make! 🤯
But When will you learn?
That your ACTIONS have CONSEQUENCES!!
Do what you love or give it up for something you hate?
The art world tends to choose political sides. The art aclaimed by critics to be really hip, trendy, edgy tends to boil down to be self-congratulatory propaganda. As long as the Deep State has control over the NEA, it's useless to actually accomplish its role.
One of the problems art runs into is everybody is an amateur art critic. We all know what we like. But what we all like is by definition uninteresting to an artist who wants to do something new and different. So why again would we want to pay for art we often don't appreciate and is often veiled political posturing?
On the other hand, we are all artists. The human brain works best with a creative spark in the mix. Art gets cut in schools in a misguided effort at focusing on the basics of functioning well as an adult, which schools are failing miserably at. If the kid can't read, what good is teaching art? Sometimes more time and emphasis doesn't produce better results. Sometimes it's just more garbage in creating garbage out.
Art is also a relief a balance and compliment to all that studying. It has a very definite place in building the sort of adult we want to have. It'd just easier for a bureaucrat or elected official to look like they're "doing something" by cutting art in favor of "what's really important"
Because society doesn't have to pay you for doing what you love. There are many people who would love to make a living as artists of various types, but many of them are either just poor artists or 'art' that no one wants to see. There is no reason to support such people. They can create such as a hobby if they wish, but the real world says that your reward will be related to whether you produce something society values. We are enriched by good art and it's often rewarded as such. We are NOT enriched by bad art. As it is, the NEA often pays for bad art so I'm not encouraged to give them more money to waste on garbage or politicized crap.
... and OBTW, his comment about the amount spent on military bands is ironic -- that IS art and he seems to be complaining about spending on it. You wouldn't think that one musician would criticize the fact that another musician is getting paid.
4:54 Artist income streams
Art is not appreciated in this society as many people have the talent to do it, so competition is high. People who don’t understand art expect their product to be good and of Low cost, believing it to be “easy” and does not contribute to the society.
It is because of artists you can have your videogames, comics, mangas and movies .
Please input bahasa indonesia subtitle
Art work won't disappear, so unless you could do better, or nobody give you a damn.
The reason for low art education is because that is what the rich want in this country. We want poor people to be poor forever. Artists only have value if they can make rich people more money. And the price goes up if we kill ourselves cause it means there are now finite pieces. That’s the fine Arts, the graphic arts no one is valued and only get paid a pittance to create a brand. And are thrown out when it’s established. Artists are a means to an end. Not something for every person should look at. The critical eye, the artist’s biggest tool is hated in the United States because if everyone used that tool we would realize that America is run by rich parasitic bigots and they can be removed by those who see them for who they really are.
I'm Italian and, to be quite honest, I'm disappointed by the fact that so much money is given to artists. The reason why I'm disappointed is that I see the results and I wouldn't call that "art". Leonardo, Palladio, Canova, Michelangelo, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Leopardi, Gaudì, Caravaggio, ...., these people were artists. KennyRandom is an artist and he started in the streets of Padua, I'm quite sure he didn't get money from my country or the EU. Artists don't have to be poor, as everyone else they just have to earn money by doing a good job...
Yep unearned money is never a good idea.
Man cites huffpoo twice in less than 5 minutes. Closing the video, good day everybody!
Artists don't hold a gun at enemies for countries or gain territory.
💔💔💔💔💔😭😭😭
Everyone wants me to have shows and make art but they don't buy my art. So I do not ....
he pronounced career wrong , but it doesn't matter.
more goes into the military industrial complex in the US than anything else. We are a very broken society.
Cloud Dancer hello I need penfriend to make conversation with him 0096407702616103 (viber and whats up)
I would be willing to guess almost all of that money generated from art is from very elite artist such as music artist and people way overspending on paintings.
I’m starting to think Artists have to create what people want. Your unique creative style may be exceptional but not a very common taste amongst art buyers. You may have to sacrifice your true uniqueness and adjust your creativity just to meet the likeness of your potential customers.
His chart showed why funding art isn’t smart: it apparently made $100+ billion when the European grant was $2 billion. Yeah, the problem ain’t funding it’s the way money is made in art. It’s too much of a lottery system and doesn’t reward skill as consistently as pretty much every non-art profession. If you want to help struggling artist, fund poor artists, not art itself
I'm glad people want to spend and invest more money into art, but real artists don't work for money, they work for themselves and sometimes other people like what they've made for themselves. When I was a teenager, I wanted to start a band and make a living off of creating music. I ended up going to college for Water and Environmental Technologies and became a wastewater operator. I thought it would be smarter to get a job that allows me to do my hobbies, opposed to getting a job based on my hobbies. I still make music, but as a hobby, and for my own self indulgence. I'm happy with my decision as I now have a great career with a great wage and benefits, and I'm able to indulge in all my artistic hobbies.
Great idea, seems he failed at his platform, but I believe Patreon is the successful version of it.
Must?