ilovefuzz.com

Hehe...I work for an inner city, safety-net hospital, who's operating margin is typically in the six figure range, since none of our patients can actually pay us to save their lives.

At one point while working on constructing a new neighborhood clinic, we approached a relatively famous Colorado photographer (one famous enough to own his own gallery), and asked if he would like to donate some photographs to hang throughout the clinic, or maybe just a large photograph for the lobby area. This would be helping the poor community members less fortunate than him, and would give his work some exposure to a population demographic that likely doesn't see his work.

His response was to send me a price list of his work, and indicate that he would be happy to donate any photographs to the project, in exchange for a donation equal in value to the prices on his price list. The cheapest photograph on the list was $5000. The larger prints one would need for a waiting room/lobby area were in the $15,000 range. I declined his offer, and we scraped together some prints of a local oil painter who is marginally famous to create the art package.

Artists come in all shapes and sizes, with all different interests, concerns, and generosities.

HighDeaf1080p wrote:Artists come in all shapes and sizes, with all different interests, concerns, and generosities.

All of them have to eat, though.

If he's making $5k to $15k on his photos, he'll be ok. We still managed to create a somewhat dignified environment for our patients (most of whom don't get to eat most of the time).

Meanwhile, One Republic just played at our fund raising gala, at a local stadium size venue, free of charge, and donated the proceeds. All different levels of generosity.

You don't work for free, I take it?

Based on your posts of your pedalboard, I would wager that you would be 'ok' making a little less, and your hospital would undoubtedly be able to redivert the money you would be giving up into giving your patients an even higher standard for their stay. All of that to ask: Where is the line? Do you actually have a line, or is it an arbitrary measure based on anecdote?

I'm no different than artists...people like me come in all different levels of generosity. I was commenting on the original article (which I thought was the purpose of this thread), not making some condemnation of the photographer in my story. If I felt he had done something wrong, I would have posted his name.

I'm not totally clear at what point I stepped on the D.o.S. landmine here, but I'm not sure you and I actually disagree on anything in this instance.

We might not, I see an implicit condemnation in the last line of the post, that's all (which is why I quoted it).

Goodness, no condemnation was meant of anyone in my story or the posted article. Garbage is a successful rock band...so I'm kinda surprised they are asking for donated work to complete their own book about themselves. Kinda weird, but I don't know the whole story. Maybe they ARE cheap, and that's ok by me. Maybe they all have $4,000,000 mortgages and $250,000 in credit card debt racked up, and literally cannot afford to pay for photos for their book, and that's OK too, but I hope they will be alright financially if that is the case. If they really can't afford photos, it kinda shatters my dreams of how rich I'll be when I finally make this music thing work out. *sigh*

Totally cool with the photographer they asked saying no, too...and I have no frame of reference how famous or rich that guy may or may not be. Just mentioned my story because the exact same thing had happened to me when I asked a photographer for a freebie, which I thought was neat, and made me feel famous for just a split second. Granted, I represented a hospital that cares for the homeless, and not a successful rock band, but if their lawyer/management was able to ask with straight face, they must have felt it was a reasonable request (right or wrong). Haha.

And extra sorry if pictures of my pedal board offended anyone. They weren't posted to brag, and its not half what most boards are on this forum.

No one's offended by the pedalboard: it's just an easy example that illustrates the point.

The problem isn't amateurs, the problem is the consumer or the professional's lack of knowledge of what the general public wants. Source: fifty shades of grey

Meh, I don't know if that's particularly fair. 50SoG obviously fills a need in the market -- I don't think people aren't reading Proust because they've picked that instead, you know? Some people want Top 40 literature, and that's ok.

Who says 'the market' needs filling? Obviously, the problem is rooted further down, in capitalism and populism. I'm so glad the government funds true artists here in Norway, that way we get literature and art that is actually interesting, not something to just 'fill a gap in the market'.

whats your criteria for 'true artists' though?

There's tons of interesting literature and art in the US, it's just in the same thing as music: if you're interested, you do the legwork. If you're not interested, you won't.

Nevermind what my criterias are, I'm just saying that as a broke/young/upcoming artist in capitalist America, the market will, to a bigger extent, make you produce something to fill this gap rather than what you actually would have made if you didn't have the financial aspect hanging over you. That's not to say that less well-off artists haven't been able to produce magnificent works of art (some which have filled a gap no one knew was even there to begin with), but it undoubtedly interacts with and leaves remnants in the finished works. Sometimes it subtle, other times blatantly obvious. Of course, intent and integrity are important aspects, but if the need is for profit, these aspects may take back seat and the necessity to please will take its place.

because you have been a broke/young/upcoming artist in capitalist America, of course, and are not simply constructing a straw man. Certainly you have more of an insight into the process than I do.

This goes back to my criteria question. How do you differentiate a 'true artist' from 'someone who wants to be an artist and wants to be given money to do it'?

Slightly more to the point: why is your assumption that EL James wouldn't have written 50 shades of Grey if she was being paid to be a "true artist" -- if that's not the assumption, my mistake, but that's what it seems to be from reading your post?