I see Graham's point about Patreon being the better of two evils. At least with Patroen artists aren't forced to spend hours and hours away from their art doing completely irrelevant things.
Patreon is better than nothing in most cases but it's still the responsibility of the state to tax the rich and invest that money into things like art and health.
@@mikeh5399 In some sense though (because people are often rightly skeptical of the state) to allow the state to control the majority of ownership of funding art, that is maybe more incidious again, because the state is more likley to want to produce art that is non-critical of the state itself.
As an artist, I would say that crowdfunding has changed both the public's perception of art and how the audience engages with it as no matter what you produce, paintings, illustration, comics, etc, once it goes into a gallery or portfolio it exists as content and whether people choose to consume it as such is entirely up to them. Now whether artists feel pressured to conform to the perceptions of society or forced to make compromises to their vision in order to appeal to their intended audience is an issue in and of itself as in every age and every artistic movement the battle for control of public opinion has been waged between those who would create art, and those who would profit off of the art created by others by acting as intermediaries. And even if you have the resources to support yourself without needing to rely on anyone else, the conflict between creativity and conformity will always exist as no matter how fast you can produce a work of art, that's still time that's being spent doing something other then meeting the needs and necessities of daily life.
The system is unsustainable, and will not be able to truly pick up the slack of the public services outside of helping those who are desperately in need and cannot be helped by the services.
Many creators end up doing less content anyway. A good way to kill a webcomic is to have the artist make a patreon. you can just hear the cartoon whistle as pages per week ratios fall like a rock. They get too busy doing patreon perks
I think that while crowd-funding may be deep-rooted within a capitalist system with its own flaws, it still increase the fairness of that system more than it would reduce it. It still provides artists with ways to create art that they would not be available in a normal corporate market, and allows consumers to choose to help that art get created. Does it solve the underlying maladies that plague the system? No, but it is still assisting artists create art that would otherwise not have been created.
I really think that crowdfunding is the best option right now. I it's part of a movement (that I love) that turns things around. Because otherwise those people that are now getting crowdfunded would wave to turn to century old institutions like banks for loans and feed a industry that already supports the interests that Spencer used against crowdfunding. At least, I think due to that change in power dynamics, we wont see Patreon supporting wars, or doing any kind of lobby. Changing the flow of money makes companies (especially new ones) think twice before trying to make profit illegally. And if they are making money ot of it I don't see a problem, I see a problem in hurting people for profit.
Remember that Da Vinci and Michelangelo had "Patrons" of their own in the dukes and kings of Europe. In fact those guys told the artists exactly what art to produce, we are very benign patrons by comparison. The 5% middleman is a new development though. -Terry Fulton
I am concerned by the assumption that content, when funded by an institution of power, is either not Art or at least less arty. There are myriad works of what would widely be considered "Art" that were commissioned (directly or indirectly) by institutions of power. One could even argue that this describes all art. There are two questions that I think should be considered when reflecting on this assumption that an artist's patronage by an institution that derives a benefit (financial or otherwise) from a work of art has a deleterious effect on the Artiness of the art: 1) Lucan's "Civil War" can either be read as praise of Nero because it recounts the great deeds of Caesar or an indictment of Nero because it describes how the establishment of monarchy was catastrophic for Rome. Does the poem have more Artiness as an encomium or condemnation? 2) The Athenian demos sued Perikles because he had spent too much of the polis' money commissioning the Parthenon sculptures by Phidias (over simplification). Perikles offered to pay for the sculptures personally because this would bring notoriety to him personally rather than to Athens as a whole. The demos refused and funded Phidias out of the public treasury. Would the sculptures of Phidias have been most Arty if they had been paid for by Athens, Perikles, or if Phidias had not been paid? I don't think each of those questions have correct answers.
Great episode. I've wondered about this too with scholars who are content creators. When does "Scholarship" become "Content." All of these "pop philosophy" and "pop science" books/blogs/vlogs created by tenured scholars skirt that line between academics and a "marketable goal" as Spencer put it.
I don't see patron influence as a hazard. No matter where you put out art (not for the sake of return but perhaps in hope of one), the same influences will be present. If you are a painter selling in a gallery, you'll notice what sells and the same question arises. It's simple market pressure.
I don't know, I always had this ghastly admiration for capitalism's ability to make money off of its own countermovement. Capitalism has no problem selling you movies that are beautifully tailored to your leftist sentiments. I mean, come on, capitalism turned Che Guevara t-shirts into a fashion statement! In earnest though, it's important to understand that capitalism is not the evil twin of communism. Not only because they both proved to do a good job on the being-evil front, no, more importantly because where communism relies on one central guiding power, capitalism by design is decentralised. There is nobody who tells a t-shirt shop about some big evil strategy on what socialist stuff they are allowed to sell to appease the red sheep and what they mustn't sell because it will actually spark the revolution. For good or for ill, capitalism isn't any more farsighted and strategic than the guy down the street who sells you those t-shirts. I know people love to believe in the 1%-Illuminati running the world and sure people's influence is largely proportional to their wealth. But some backroom full of cigar smoke being where some old men decide whether Che Guevara t-shirts are permitted? That's not how it works.
I agree with the video that there was a neo-liberal shift in the financial market. But this shift was not accompanied by a social change to individualism. Many here might say something in the line of "Thank god, that we do not fully embrace individualism (vs. collectivism)", but this is actually a very dangerous situation we are in: In the current state of society big corporations are able to maximise profit, while leaving all the costs of education, health and social security to the state. Because, corporations can always argue that they have payed their charity already by paying the mandatory charges. Now add the complex systems of a grown state, for example in health care: Since the end of World War II the doctor's union managed to create artificial shortage in order to better the lives of their members. This increased health care costs to a point that the state had to cut on many treatments. Taxes are already very high, about 40% of the total income is taxed away *only* for health care (hidden via different names for mandatory charges which are not legally taxes) However, nobody here would think of founding a private charity for supporting people with health problems. Why? Because a) our politicians tell us, that we already have the best health care system of all OECD-countries (which is an outright lie, but who reads OECD-studies) and b) because we already pay a huge part of our incomes to let the state fix this problem. That's a tripple hit against people of lower incomes: High taxes which are not paying for every necessary treatment and the myth spread by our politicians, that you don't have to help our employees personally, because the state already took care of that. That's why on this side of the social value scale many differentiate between corporatism (current system, with the range from fascism to neo-liberalism) and fully self-responsible capitalism (there is no organisation which mandates a concept for helping others, which is a good scapegoat for all problems and gives everyone an excuse not to care about anyone). What do you think?
August Heinrich Barbarossa I think that I don't quite see the connection to what I wrote tbh. Other than that, I agree with a lot of what you said but I'm also curious where you come from that all your politicians, governing parties and opposition alike, perpetuate the same lie about leading the OECD statistics in healthcare when that's not the case.
+Penny Lane You are right... Now that I re-read I'm not that sure why I replied on your comment and not on the video itself. Maybe it was an Freudian slip to be not alone with my leanings in a Philosophy Tube comment section. Sorry :-) Austria Even the main association of Austria' social security ('Hauptverband der Sozialversicherungen') started to use it jokingly (or at least I hope it was a joke and not sincere): "In dem Land mit dem besten Gesundheitssystem der Welt leben die Menschen nicht in größtmöglicher Gesundheit." (Soziale Sicherheit 1/2016) // "In the country with the best health care system of the world, not all people are living with the best possible health" (own translation) Here is the OECD-study-series I refered to. www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-at-a-glance-19991312.htm I suggest to take a "glance" at the tables of page 23 and following, the whole 2015 study has 220 pages.
@@AHBarbarossa why would corporations pay charity without state mandated tax, and would that charity be more than or equal to the money that flows into healthcare and education through taxes?
@Yonatan Beer Believe it or not, because we are humans too and don't want to see suffering in our vicinity and are influenced by photos and films of other countries. Second because without (in this case privately financed) public healthcare and education you won't get healthy, well-educated people for your company too. When talking inside my echo chamber I always try to remind people that they won't pay less resources to others and the community if they want to keep their standard of living. The difference is that you pay for things you believe in and politicians (or how that community-coordinating role is called then) have to ask you for that money and explain why their solution is the best.
but historically artist have always made content so they could make art, in MANY circunstances the content IS THE ART, look at any monument, any renascence work, any surrealist work, ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE MUSIC WORK, have being made towards a public to be consumed first, while at the same time, holding it's status as art.
Your2ndPlanB i also have an unique album that i made with my garage band, only three copys ever made, just for us. don't think rarity is a factor, music is made to be listen, otherwise, is just silence.
You are right but according to Spencer (the man in topic in the video) he loosely defines "art" as a more creative freedom where as "content" is more on the promoted or productive side of things.
mrr Image and i say his classification is equivocated and wrong. art can be at the same time content, they overlap, while a disney movie is just content, it is just a product, blade runner or alien that are both entertaining lucrative movies and pieces of arts in cinema.
+Lucas - I posted earlier today on this feed about it, i agree in a sense. There are of course related arguments that can make this more grey scale such as what is art? How do we value art? Influence vs manipulation to name a few. But generally speaking i agree and think Spencer is bias to his interpretation of the art/content relationship.
The problem arises from the starting point of an adventure in crowd-funding between an established artist A, (say like Olly) and a fledgling artist, B. Since A has already established a solid ground for himself, he is not easily swayed by patrons and their vices. He can further develop his art by taking suggestions in part or full and moves along. In contrast, B is still starting up and still trying to find her niche. This can very easily be dictated by the content-makers, even more so when B is not being very confident about herself in succeeding and established within herself crowd-funding as the primary bread-winning machine unknowing of the consequences towards herself and her art. Money and peer-pressure are two huge insurmountable forces to an artist who is in a desperate (or quasi-desperate) situation. The pro in crowd-funding is that for that artist who just wants to be given a sharp shuttle-off, it is a good start and incentive. But she must keep in mind not to loose herself in the process. So in a nutshell, each artist has to pass approximately through what Olly has passed through. Firmly establishing her ideas at first and then getting deserved credit for the good work and creativity that is being shown. Every one tries to avoid the pain in the process, but I think it is a necessary evil to dirty one's hands as it helps in the growth of one's personality and character. One cannot hope to win in a fair sport competition without putting the effort and sacrifice in a lot of training, right? Nowadays, in my honest opinion, we are being to 'painless-oriented' with all this comfy-technology around us. Describing us as lazy would be an understatement, and crowd funding is a part-consequence of today's Societal Soft-Culture.
I personally would feel kinda guilty making a Patreon, unless my videos are like really really good and I have enough subscribers to make it worth while, otherwise I'd just feel like a money grubber.
I really enjoy your videos, particularly since you've begun using more animation, and definitely think they're worth your being paid for the effort of making them. I understand your reservations about Patreon however, for the reasons Olly gives in this video.
conferencereport I actually think for me its more about being a hater for charity for myself, a bit of a hangover from my conservative childhood. Thanks for the support though :)
The voice of integrity, but generally people who have integrity don't really need to feel guilty. At the time you made this post your videos were already "really, really good".
1:21 in my experience, Patreon is for those who want to give money directly to a creator they like and whose content or art they already like. They’re giving money to something already there or that they enjoy. They know what they’re getting. Kickstarter is like a preorder service where you give money in order to fund a project and that project in turn will give you products related to the project that you think you will like.
Absolutely brilliant video. Thanks! What really struck me though, was not the part about art becoming content, but the part about crowdfunding sites profiting off of the capitalistic structure of society. It reminded me a bit about your discussion of the trolley problem, that we don't look beyond it and wonder what made us have to choose either of the bad things. (My English is far from perfect, I'm sorry xD)
In the same vein, we could also ask the question of whether piracy (and other means of free wide distribution) has made it possible for a resurgence of originality in music. By 'liberating' artists from the economic pressure of record labels and the 'music industry', artists are more free to experiment and try new ideas that would be deemed 'too risky' by corporate interests. This of course means that artists no longer can live of their music, and that the production quality of the music will suffer, but is this necessarily a bad thing? The ultimate question then becomes, *who* is art being made *for*? Is it for the sake of the artist, or for the spectator? Should art be an altruistic endeavor? Fun questions to think about.
As soon as you introduce any kind of metric be it views, likes, clicks, sales, Patreon supporters or just the number of people who show up to a performance, then you run the risk of changing what you do to increase or, at least, maintain that number and if you don't care about any kind of metric, then there's no point in making your work publicly available. I think think Patreon is one of the least risky metrics in this sense because, for the most part, supporters are paying creators to continue what they were already doing. Admittedly, this carries a risk of stymieing a creators development, but every creator risks losing their audience when the change, no matter what metric they're using. Also, while crowdfunding companies may profit off of the broken system, they also provide us with a way to work around it so, unless/until there's a way to fix the system and crowdfunding companies have enough power to actively and effectively oppose that fix, then I think that they're far more of an asset than a liability.
Our Aesthetics professor talked about this issue too but instead of focusing on economic restraints he talked about the limits that are put on artists who are still in education. They are taught different techniques and methods of creating art and generally are helped to become a better artist most of the time. And whatever you think about these kind of art degrees, they are undoubtly becoming more popular. But on the other hand these artists, just like anyone else, have to finish exams and have to present their work in front of teachers and eventually a jury to be able to graduate. He said that this would, just like patreon would, create limits for the artist, because they would have to create art for their teachers, or in your example the patreons and not just for the sake of art. He argued that art made especially for someone, with the intend to please others, shouldn't be called art whatever the circumstances may be.
Crowdfunding isn't the core issue here, artists having to create art in order to survive financially is the problem, always have been, yet only the rich and the elite have been capable of creating works without having to depend on them. Would it really be better if the only art there was never meant to be profitable? Is art created with comercial goals in mind unworthy of being called art? I've seen purist art films that bored me to tears and tv advertisements that pulled my heartstrings, so does it really matter in the end?
I can agree with you and agree with the head of marketing on Patreon. Many people struggle with trying to get commissions or freelance work and are forced to get a part-time job. As someone that manages two artists, as well as trying to promote myself in different medias, we'd all much rather draw content as the "Part-time job" bit, because it's doing something we love, while getting paid for it. However, there are many patreon creators who are still allowed enough time to do their regular commissions, and have opportunity to be creative and have fun on their spare time, without too much stress. Sometimes patrons on patreon support the creator because they just love their stuff in general or love the creator enough to just give a bit of money monthly to send them off to do their own thing. Not to mention, 5% is nothing compared to the almost 30% tax you get on paychecks. In America, we get income tax, but with crowdfunding sites we get much more freedom and are allowed to be riskier in our approach and attempts to give new ideas as well as a community. This was a great video.
The Benjamin passage you quoted reminded me of 'satire' and stand-up. So long as those things are moulded to be profitable, they stand to benefit from being paradoxical - they aim to punch down and legitimate status quo norms for the sake of filling their artists' wallets. As to crowdfunding in general, I couldn't agree more with Spencer about crowdfunding healthcare, BUT 'art' gets a bit iffy and there is a spectrum. Some people will see patreon as a way to be paid for your art - or rather, content - but patreon frames itself as being an artist's platform by not being about 'getting paid', but about, in their own words, *'support'*. You don't pay X, you support them. And that's where you need to consider your relationship with your creators and how you fund. For example, I'm glad you brought up Laura K Buzz. She recently put out an article that I felt was very misguided, distasteful, spiteful, and a whole host of other perjoratives. For a while I considered withdrawing / reducing my support after this month's payment, but then I thought about how my money should be that - *support*. If I punitively withold my money then I reinforce the idea that Laura should make content that I want (and I will concede that there's some grey ground here because I thought the article was pretty unethical, not 'an article I disagreed with'), rather than support which is me wanting Laura to keep working and growing, and I should only stop paying when I no longer wish to or can't afford to.
I think charity its still good for specific content to exist, like a certain channel of philosophy managed by a certain person named Olly XD. That being said, the article really gives us something to think about. Good episode :)
I see this has been a number of years, but as I also use Patreon to publish my own content, I'm glad for its existence as a platform and the effort to make it a good platform for the purpose. I'm not making money from it at this time, and I have made rather little money off it over the years that I have been publishing. But, I get to make my content, self-publish, and feel the esteem of accomplishment over time as I develop my content and mature as a creator. I'm totally able to make what I want to create and publish it without concern for marketability in the largest measure due to a full-time career as a networking technology consultant, so it is a superb gap between my hobbyist content as an amateur creative writer and the professional content of full-time artists, performers, musicians, and all the other creators using Patreon. But, in addition to the concerns of crowdfunding for artists, the fact that concerns were described for healthcare, legal services, adoption, or other pro-social purposes is a valuable portion of the conversation. If the idea proliferates that personal wealth should not contribute to community good except by personal choice, I cannot imagine the prolonged existence of a functional government. That's not a claim that most existing governments are especially high-functioning now, but it is something worth contrasting.
Well. I quite agree. When you belong to a sector or industry, you can't openly criticize it because it will certainly bounce back. That is why the "catalyst of change" can only work from within to create a change for the better. Finger-pointing does NO HELP to provide a lasting and efficient solution to social problems. Being a part of any institution is enough challenge to bear because you can either be part of its ROT or be the PEST-killer to clean up the ROT.
I don't see anything new about crowdfunding putting pressure on the artist to be commercially viable, that is part of any form of selling art. It's up to the artist how much they want to bend to what they think the market wants, or to not bend at all. I think the internet facilitates meeting a lot of like minded people, and successful websites are a good platform and deserve to be paid for the work they do, they take a cut like how an agent or an art gallery would. I think there is nothing new about the first point it's just a modern version of an age old dilemma for artists, which punks would call selling out or staying true to their art. The thing about wasting people's time selling mugs or t shirts or whatever is pretty valid. I remember first noticing this for webcomic creators, who couldn't make any money from doing daily webcomics, so they all made merchandise based on their webcomics and a lot of them got by doing that. That's not really making art and it is stealing time and effort from making art. I see that as on the side merchandising/ whatever business, it's up to the artist how much they want to spend on that, but it's a different thing altogether to making art. I guess in some kind of socialist utopia all artists wouldn't have to do these things. They'd get some kind of art grant. But art grants do exist in a lot of countries, and in England they aren't hard to get, as long as you fulfill all the criteria and know how to apply for one. Do they make good art? I'd say for the most part not. Would you rather art was swayed by commercial markets or bureaucratic box ticking exercises? You seem to want to untangle art making from western capitalism, and that is entirely possible, the artist just shouldn't care if his art is commercially viable or not, and then job done.
I think the distinction between «art» and «content» is very similar to the distinction between the much older distinction between «fine» and «pop» art. Content is modern pop art. It is still the case that the best way to get patron is to produce high-quality art. We, as public, have good tastes, and good quality art and content consistently perform better in the marketplace than bad quality art and content. I think the socio-economo-political criticism of crowdfunding is extremely relevant. I think that systematic public funding of art would promote creativity more than crowdfunding does, so we should head towards that, but crowdfunding is still better than what we had before. I pay 49 CD$ a month in total for my internet subscription and get all my art through the internet. Make that 50. The reason I'm paying for that is to access art and content. But my service providers get to take all the money for that in exchange for doing mostly nothing except owning, gatekeeping and maintaining infrastructures that already exist. (Other companies also expand and developp their infrastructures, but the company I buy from doesn't). I envision a future where access to the internet becomes public, and inwhich at least half the money we pay to access the internet is funneled towards artists and content creators in accordance to an incentive principles that maximizes humanity's overall creativity (and that means we have artists who are : 1- Financially secure 2- Do not need to create art for money, but instead have all liberty to create art for itself).
A topic I don't think you have covered yet that would make an interesting discussion is surveillance. There are a lot of serious, legitimate questions that currently have very real consequences. Is fighting crime enough justification for mass surveillance? What are the philosophical arguments against "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear"? Would ensuring total government transparency be a fair tradeoff for mass surveillance? How much trust should we put in the government to do what is best? What gives people the right to privacy? What even is privacy anyway? Security is often used to justify thinly veiled power-grabs, so how can we know when increases in surveillance are in response to legitimate threats? When does the government become more of a threat than the outside threat they are supposedly protecting people from?
As an artist, I decided to make art that would sell. So, that I could spend my time putting paint on canvas. If you are young and have tons of energy and a plan, you can do two jobs at once. At some point, I started feeling it. The fatigue. What to do? The road I took provided a decent income, a little recognition, travel, fun and less headaches than the graphic artist/marketing agency that I turned out to hate. Of course, many people around me helped and supported me. Now, an old man, it was fun and I could have done much worse.
I am an anarchist who was hesitant to set up a patreon, in the end it was better than nothing at all, but I really needed the money to upgrade my equipment. so I operate under the understanding that neoliberalism is the problem and this is the only way I can partially circumvent the neoliberal capitalist system and make my videos.
1. Art is supposed to help you with certain aspects for your life (see Alain de Button): make big ideas more digestible, remind you of certain feelings, help you cope with certain situations etc. 2. a business, on the most basic level, is working to fulfill someone elses needs in return for funds If you strip away the notion that art is supposed to be "just for arts sake", then patreon, just like ebay / booking.com / amazon etc., is just technology that makes it easier for a great number of suppliers to meet an even bigger number of customers.
It sounds like Spencer might be setting up a false dichotomy or two. In particular, I don't think artistic merit and popular appeal are mutually exclusive, or even really in opposition; the art vs. content distinction smacks of snobbery. In addition, it is possible to both give charitably AND campaign for wholesale socioeconomic change. If someone uses the fact that they gave to a crowdfuning page as justification for complacently supporting an unfair system, then we have a real problem. But the problem is with the complacency, not the giving.
At least with crowdfunding, the people who finance the creation of content are the same people who probably already like the content/art that the creator was producing to begin with. Unlike traditional financing, an artist using crowdfunding has virtually unlimited potential donors, so if one person doesn't like the type of content that would have been created, someone else will, and THAT person will donate. So the artist is basically free to create anything as long as SOMEONE wants to see it. The alternative is to go with a single backer, like the way movies are financed, but with limited options, the studios and backers have much more say in what does and doesn't get funded. So what other alternatives are there? We could have a program to publicly fund artists through taxation, but then who gets to decide which artists get money and which ones don't? A government agency is going to have even more power to censor content than a private backer, because whereas banks and sponsors are in competition with each other, governments are monopolies. There's also the possibility of using your own resources to fund your art, but since most people don't have many resources, the result is that a lot of art goes uncreated. (I've got dozens of ideas for novels, short films, plays, feature films, and satirical sketches that never get made, because my "day" job takes up all my time and energy.)
I've always been against needing my artistic pursuits to make me money. And I do mean that I'm against it, personally; it's not something I believe is "right", or something I would hold others to. I've never really thought of the reasons, but this video was excellent and made me further consider it. Interestingly enough, I wouldn't personally consider vlog-type vidoes I watch on TH-cam to be "art". (And I don't mean this as a disrespect; I've made a few vlog-type TH-cam videos too and I wouldn't consider them as art either.) My reasons for thinking art and money should be separate: 1. To me, art should be purely personal. If there's any external vested interests, it loses that personal touch that - to me - makes art, art. I think this is a big part of why music labels and artistes get on so "infamously"; it's because the label is trying to make money. And there's nothing wrong with that. They are employed too, they have families to feed, etc. But the artist who is "trying to stay true to who they are" but consciously chooses to sign to a record label - whose primary purpose is to make money - will almost always run into difficulties. Of course, this is a choice. You don't have to make money doing what you love. You can just do it anyway because you love it and make money some other way. Which brings me to my second point... 2. Everyone is an artist. There's not some special set of people out there who just "have" to make art and are unique because they are artistic. To be human is to be artistic. It's part of the human experience. Everyone I know is artistic and everyone I know makes art, in some way. And I think a big part of the reason I'm against asking for money for my art is because it strikes me as entitled (this is only MY opinion). Maybe because I didn't grow up in a situation where you could really spend money on less than essential things so, in my mind, there are so much better things people could be doing with their money. And especially because I have so many more options. Of course I know that for everyone, this is not the case, and I know that it's a choice individuals make and you can't tell people what to do with their money. But I am cautious of the way it seems to be fashionable to sort of *expect* ...maybe that's the wrong word...(maybe WANT?) to make money from your art, or your passion. At the end of the day, this is just a personal feeling and I would never and HAVE never felt critical of people who use crowdfunding for their art. I think people should just do whatever they want - if it's making you happy, as long as it's not harming anyone, I'm not going to spend too much energy thinking about it .
One extremely large point about crowd funding that must be addressed is the crowd part. A very valid argument could be made that crowd funding created a more open market of ideas. Rather than needing to do what a single benefactor dictates, it allows a fundee to do something they enjoy. Odds are for any given interest, at least 10 financially sound people are into it too. It frees the ideas from the standard societal structure. In theory, anyway. I will admit that i don't know much about it in practice.
I'm a fine art student and I'm always trying to think of stuff to make and sometimes I would need money for it but yea the problem is what you outlined and sometimes this stops me from making the things I want to make . And some of the people studying with me are building bars and other things to sell beer to get money .but not everyone wants to build bars . And yeah your thoughts make sense .
And I feel like people need to remind each other what art is and what it can be and that some stuff is art so they can appreciate it better even if it isn't their ideal
Yo have you read Adorno and Horkheimer? Because this question is SO Adorno and Horkheimer. You should read Adorno and Horkheimer! Adorno and Horkheimer, Adorno and Horkheimer. You mention them five times, and they'll appear, that's how you summon them -- they're just like Betelgeuse, if Betelgeuse was marxist. Btw, that version of the movie would be amazing, fucking ghost Michael Keaton seizing the means of production and shit.
isn't crowd funding preferable? the artist is getting time and monetary backing to create their art. w/o the need for being controlled or censored by some parent company. how i see it crowd funding sites are kinda cutting out the middle man it goes from consumer straight to artist with a small finders fee, after that it would be up to the artist to play more towards the consumer. both sides can have the freedom to give and create at their leisure, and the crowd funding company gets payed .05 cents on every dollar the artists gets for using the site, otherwise both the consumer and artist are allowed to make and spend money any way they see fit like at convention, or ebay (first thing that came to mind). i think it's the more ideal way to gain backers (artistically, politically, ect., ect.). some huge warning signs that would pop up is if artists gaining money start losing money and then the company's start penalizing them, anything beyond just closing their account i think would be malicious.
I don't think it was really implied that it wasn't preferable. What is better as monetary backing might be a matter of opinion that could shift dependant on the kind of art or content to be created? I've been part of two gaming projects that were crowd funded on Kickstarter, one that was funded by a government scheme, a handful that were publisher backed, and a couple that were entirely independent, and in all cases there are varying constraints on creativity in order to meet either publisher demands or simply to ensure success with a target audience. I think the only way to be entirely free of those kinds of constraints is to create for no audience or profit, but often constraints are what encourage creativity.
Reanimated Willow and that in part was something I talked about. If the art is good then people will always want to buy. Or not. I always have this idea in my head that artists are poor And destitute(i.e. van goph) The freedom comes from the artist being able to make his art unhindered by anyone else. Anything can be artistic like sweeping or fighting, it doesn't mean people always want to pay for it.
What I have missed in this video is some alternative to crowdfunding system as it is now. It is quite obvious that for health issues the alternative is the health care system provided by government, although I do not believe that such system can totally replace charity. For the art in general it is not so obvious - should art be provided by government? Should youtube bloggers apply for some scholarships? I know that there are public theaters and public movies (full disclosure - I am not a fan of that), but should all art be sustain like that? Who would judge whether ‘Phillosophy tube’ is more valuable that youtube channel with movie reviews? And why should a taxpayer support movie reviews if he does not like watching them? Any thoughts on that? Ideas for alternative?
I think Adorno needs to be mentioned here, in the context of the 'commodification' of art. Where Adorno was speaking mainly of the 'culture industry' that arose in the early 20th century, we can probably use it to critique crowdfunding in a similar way. As Olly mentioned in the video, using crowdfunding could put pressure on a creator to ignore personal expression, or nebulous concepts such as 'artistic merit', in favour of creating 'content', i.e. things that are designed to appeal to as large a group as possible. There is however another feedback loop, in which patrons will demand 'more of the same', and the creator will feel pressured to give in to this demand. In this way, we run the risk of 'stagnating' culture, getting stuck in familiar patterns. On a more conceptual level, the directness of crowdfunding might turn art from something created 'in, of and for itself' into something 'paid for and (by extention) created for' specific people. This is the very definition of being a commodity. If you want to know exactly why this is bad, i recommend you read the original paper. It's not that long. www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwisgaqN1ZbPAhWJvRoKHQLrBm0QFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sociosite.net%2Ftopics%2Ftexts%2Fadorno_culture_reconsidered.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHpVupno8mm30c5GqNXU_H-QjOVXQ&sig2=xpKQ5QzhPvpucl6jpoKZfA&cad=rja (p.s. Adorno hated jazz, so he wasn't an all round ok guy. Just wanted to make this clear)
I'd really love to live in the world this Jacobin writer thought we had before crowd funding, when artists could just make art however they felt like and didn't need money to eat or pay rent.
Perhaps one can make the distinction between 'inspired' art (art which sort of comes forth without any (seemingly) motivation behind it but rather it comes from your own sort of habitual response to the world) and 'motivated' art, where the art is motivated by something in addition to just making it. It could be either money, joy, a romantic gesture and so on. I think the tricky thing is though that 'motivated' art could become 'inspired art' just through sheer repetition, so what I am saying is that perhaps it isn't relevant to focus on how pure art is or how it comes about, but rather the ethics of the realized work itself. And maybe what sort of circumstances produces which type of art (if it possible to make those distinctions). Maybe we'll find out crowdfunding produces X type of art, while white collaring it and doing art on weekends produce Y type of art and so on. So you know which circumstances to place yourself in in order to produce the sort of art you want to produce.
I think it's interesting how the moral status of charity and tax-funded campaigns differ: In a neoliberal system it is widely accepted that giving money to charity is a good thing to do when you are in the position to do so. Yet, unless you agree with Peter Singer, donating money usually is supererogatory, ergo not a duty. Were the same things funded by taxes, such an act would be a duty. One thing that strikes me is the position of rich people, the winners in neoliberal systems: When they donate in their system, they usually still are wealthy since they donate just a reasonable amount of money AND additionally they earn social and/or moral praise. People point to them and say "How generous of them to donate some of their hard-earned money!". In tax-based systems wealthy people would just perform the same action as a duty (paying taxes instead of giving money to charity), meaning that the moral and/or social praise might disappear.
Really enjoying the issues you bring up and the diverse perspectives/opinions from you and your sources. I actually wanted to do something like this myself. What degree did you get? I'm currently majoring Philo and CS.
Crowdfunding is a solution within capitalism. It's there to both support and leech off of creativity. As a moral alternative to what exists in our society currently it feels like an improvement, and it's worth noting that I anecdotally see very original and niche content, possibly suggesting the constrains on making things people "want to see" might be more than offset by the platform it offers to connect to a wider audience.
the problem with the article is that it basically ignores the fact that art at its basics isn't a necessity, without the emergence of crowd funding the artist by proxy have to confirm to the status quo and create content to survive before they to create the art that they are interested in. in fact it should be the opposite since the emergence of crowd funding an artist could create what ever they desire and get rewarded for their work much quicker then ever before and reach a bigger global audience.
I'm for Patreon because of you or other creators who bridge the gap between "higher level content" and normal content. Through Patreon, I can support artists to make more and diverse work so I don't see it as content unless the Patreon user is asking for money to pay for "content". I agree that Content vs Art is a spectrum because there's no clear, black or white answer to what people do on Patreon. Kickstarter helped me support The Oatmeal and his Exploding Kittens project which would have never been published because of how eccentric it is.
ThioJoe often talks about how the videos which he enjoys making the most are watched the least on his channel and vice versa. However, your philosophy videos feel every bit as genuine as those you made years ago. Who could have ever guessed: there might not be a simple answer?
Art vs. content isn't really a dichotomy. The content that you make appeals to certain people, and it appeals to you. Both you and your audience share this same interest. So if you are making content based on what you like, what you are passionate about, odds are that it will appeal to your audience too. So unless you were going to completely break away from your core supporters, like switching your channel from discussing philosophy to performing covers of pop songs, there is no conflict. Content and art (or audience focused vs. personal driven) are in harmony. Sure, you might do some videos that are more focused on what your audience wants rather than what you are interested in, but even those are probably going to have some appeal to you. I like programming computers. I've never had any desire to work in finance (and money stresses me out). Yet I work for a financial firm as a programmer. I don't have an interest in the financial aspect of the company, but I enjoy figuring out solutions to problems and writing code just as much there as I do when I write as a hobby. As far as the issues with crowdfunding for things like taking care of personal expenses, I absolutely agree. It highlights a major problem we have today, but only provides a stop-gap measure, not a sustainable solution.
Have you considered using a non-profit crowdfunding service rather that Patreon? Most of them are pretty small and are aimed at co-operatives and social enterprises, and obviously don't have the brand familiarity of the big players like Patreon and Kickstarter, but at least you know that profits are being channeled back into the company, or toward making positive social change, rather than enriching owners and shareholders.
this is an issue but it is more larger than, and predates crowd-funding. just about any band you can think of has been accused of "selling out" which essentially means sacrificing innovative and creative spunk in favor of increased financial gain by appealing to a wider audience as possible, whilst still retaining the bare minimum amount of soul that makes that band what it is. that said I can see how this problem could be exacerbated by crowd funding due to the more direct link between the consumer and the artist and the way in which the artist is more dependent on the consumer than would otherwise be the case in more traditional funding methods such as being given a lump sum as part of signing to a record label. my opinion is at worst crowd-funding doesn't destroy art but dilutes it and at best gives the artist a more intimate connection with the audience and takes some of the power back from the corporate organizations whose only interest is creating profit for their shareholders.
The point that was made by Benjamin in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" about how these crowdfunding services wouldn't be necessary if the rich were taxed properly in the first place made me think of something. If I knew that, say, 15% of my taxes were going towards something that I didn't support (like a war, maybe) then I can't choose to only pay the 85% of my taxes that would pay for things that I do support. Not without getting in trouble with the government, at least. However, by lowering taxes and increasing services where I can choose exactly where my money goes, I can use my money to support only those causes that I endorse. In America, it seems like the only thing politicians care about is finances. That, and the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the way we spend money is a form of free speech, leads me to think that we may be better off switching from normal taxes to a system resembling a crowdfunding site where people would still be required to spend whatever percentage of their income is currently taken out for taxes, but they could choose where that money goes. Those projects and services that the people want will get funded while those that the people do not want would have to cut back. That would mean that the rich would have their interests served more easily than most others, however the rich are already able to hire lobbyists to get laws that serve their interests passed already. At least with this system the people would have a chance to shift things to more closely resemble actual national interests. I know this doesn't quite stick to the subject of art in the video, but government grants for art and artists could become a more prominent thing if that is what the people decide.
You bring up an interesting point, but we have have to ask if the people at large would use their extra money to actually give or support industries/practices they prefer, or if they would simply engage in more hedonism or conspicuous spending (which I don't mean to imply are inherently "bad", but if the extra resources are going towards that as opposed to many of what our taxes fund, I don't know how long such a system would remain stable)
That's why I said that whatever percentage of your income is currently paid in taxes would be required to go into this service. So, if you're currently paying 7% of your income in taxes, then you would be legally required to pay a minimum of 7% of your income in services. The difference is that you decide how much of that 7% is allocated to things like education, military, art, infrastructure or whatever else is available.
Yeah I saw that. That's smart: to have everyone required to give some percentage to avoid lazy or greedy people. But what if a huge percentage all prioritize entertainment, the arts, etc and infrastructure and military, because they are so "unseen" in comparison, get neglected in a detrimental way?
This is a degrading subject but I have reason to believe it is art The better analogy is that this kind of artwork acts like a language of recursive internet memes, and though the filmstrip is not fully organized the mind puts it together without our noticing consciously. Tosh.0 is another good example of where this new language of public offerings on the net. It may seem undignified but it feels good to be entertained and engaging!
Producing monetisable content and producing creative/experimental content are not mutually exclusive. Assuming 9-5, 5 days a week is the normal working hours, an artist could produce art for patrons or paying customers in those working hours, and then create experimental and personal art on the weekend. This is just an example though and I don't feel it is Ideal. It would be exhausting to put that many hours into ones art. Ideally, someone would just do their own thing, and enough people would like it that it would fund the artist. I think the problem (or not, if you prefer the money) is the creeping hand of the market. Where a content creator slowly starts to change their content into something that 'the masses' want. A feedback loop where a bit more money coming from a certain style causes that style to be produced more which leads to even more money. But I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. There appear to be enough customers of varying tastes to fund a wide variety of artists and styles. But an artist is not being stopped from creating experimental work that wont make money. They simply cannot make exclusively these work.
While I agree with a lot of what you said regarding the potential pitfalls of crowdfunding in the larger scope of capitalism and as it reaches into all aspects of life including health care I believe the initial premise, regarding art, is flawed. I don't think we need to draw a distinct line between "content" and art. Now, of course we could have a long discussion about what "content" means, in the way aesthetics seeks to understand art...but if we skip that for now I think we can easily say that while not all "content" is art, some "content" is, and perhaps, depending on how one defines "content, all art is "content"...in the same way that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Whether we are talking about art on youtube, Hollywood or indie film, music or painting - it being made to make money, and the creator's process being influenced by the need to make money, doesn't diminish the quality of the art. Artists have always had to skew their art a certain way in order to make money. It may be unfortunate, and we might make a case that it in some ways hinders creativity and/or expression but it doesn't make their work not art. Simply think of something that you can't deny is art in any medium. It was probably made for money. If you think of classical composers like Mozart, they often worked for wealthy families and nobility who would give them money and a place to live in exchange for regular output of compositions. These wealthy supporters were called Patrons (I'm guessing its where Patreon gets its name). If you think of a film, like the Wizard of Oz - it was made by a major studio for the purposes of making money - things from the text were changed in the film just to make it more sellable. That doesn't change the fact that the film on its own is a wonderful piece of art. The only real difference between crowdfunding and patrons or studios, etc. is who is doing the funding. Instead of a few people with a lot of money paying to have art made, lots of people, average people, contribute a little bit each to get art made. In some ways this is a good thing for creativity and art. Going back to the Mozart example, he had one person with specific tastes and ideas he had to format his music to please. With a larger group of people contributing there are more tastes and ideas and kinds of people to please which opens the door to more possibilities. Of course there is the issue of you can't please everyone but that is a problem of art regardless. Finally, I will say that I think a lot of these ideas come from the pre-conceived notion of the "starving artist" - this idea that if you're not suffering for your art it isn't any good. That's just wrong and it contributes to a lot of problems of the artist, especially when trying to get paid.
I just wanted to ask if you plan to upload something about metaphysics in the near future, because I find it really interesting :) And good video btw :)
Maybe the only time I've heard a critical TH-cam video say "we approached X" and instead of following up with "they declined to comment" actually they did answer?? Wow.
It seems like not all crowdfunding platforms can be lumped into the one category. There seems to be a bit of a spectrum between charity based crowdfunding and content/product based crowdfunding. A platform like Kickstarter is designed to act as a means to raise funds from interested parties to produce products or back projects based upon audience/customer interest in those things. Patreon might sit somewhere in between those poles. It seems to me that GoFundMe is the most problematic kind of crowdfunding platforms, given that it exists in that vacuum where one would hope tax funded solutions and government programs should exists as was touched on. There's probably not a huge amount of space for purely artistic and creative endeavours if you're down at the bottom of the Maslow triangle of good times =P
I don't really see how patreon is any different from normal advertising. Ok, the methods (youtube, patreon ect) mean that there can be a more direct relationship between the creators and the funders, which could increase the diversity of the media, and the money might be stread out a little more. Making your 'art' with your patreons in mind (or the potential for views, shares, likes) is no different from TH-cams advertiser friendly guide lines that have caused a bit of an uproar.
Oops, I forgot to point out something else. The great Renaissance artists worked on commission. How's that different from some people making monthly donations to artists?
On one hand... okay, this is philosophy, and it is very important to discuss things in the ideological level, but Patreon is a service. A platform that took design (from concept to interaction to usability to interface), that took people, servers and money to create and still takes to maintain, and yeah, even taking all of that into consideration, they profit -- after all, they created something. And creators should earn their due, isn't that the whole point? And you're choosing to use their service. If you were to ask for a more direct form donnation, and keep up manually with all the people donating, remind them to donate regularly, manage the organization and delivery of incentives and perks for each person and make the whole process convenient enough for them, I'm pretty sure that would take a lot more of your, or anyone's, time. So, really, the criticism seems to be more torwards the very process of monetization -- and artists gotta eat. If we really had a government model that provided enough incentives for artists to express their subjectivity, by, say, taxing the rich more, either art would have to be subjected to a "quality" evaluation -- having to meet some quantifiable standards, which I'm sure the same people would argue that also 'destroys art', or it would be a system that's VERY easy to abuse -- can I make a line on a paper, call it art and expect payment? I really can't think of a solution to that that doesn't make the whole thing super arbitrary, since, I mean, it's art. The best solution I see really is what crowdfunding does -- if art is supposed to affect people, the content model makes sure that people become the judges of what is affecting them, at least to some level. That's not perfect, but it's sure as hell better than having corporations decide that for you. I adore crowdfunding. Patreon is a very good solution, so much so that I feel compelled to defend it against any kind of criticism (which, yeah, it's not a very good attitude to have either), just out of fear it may lose its momentum; that if people start giving up on it, we just might go back to that dark, dark place. If that author you mentioned fears crowdfunding turns people's expectations into a deciding factor, without it we have what investors/producers/stakeholders/publishers/etc THINK are people's expectations being THE deciding factor. I'm generalizing the hell out of this, yeah, and my position is obviously not the best. Just because a solution is good, doesn't mean we shouldn't question it, or the system that made it necessary. But being in said system, money being a limited and needed resource, and with crowdfunding being still a somewhat recently emerging model, as directors, game developers, eastern and western animators begin to test its waters for higher productions that would otherwise never get made, I feel that targetting our rightful insatisfaction with the problem at one of the best solutions might not be the beest idea. Interesting discussion btw, absolutely love the channel! (Believe it or not this comment is not sponsored by Patreon :"D)
So my thought on the whole content vs art thing is that what you produce will only change if what you currently offer isn't valued by people. If your art is valued enough by people then you'll get the financial support from some of them. If the art you make isn't valued then why should you receive any sort of financial support for it? If it's overall not valued then you really should look to do something that does bring value to people.
When I read the title, I immediately thought „No", because many artists were financially depending on people liking and buying their stuff. Many painters but also musicians and writers. Basically most artists are in some way supported and therefore not 100 % doing whatever they'd like to. However, when you introduced the difference between art and content I kinda changed my opinion. It's this old discussion of when art or the style of your favourite band changes and you have the feeling that it becomes a commercially motivated kind of art. Content, as you said. On the other hand, I wouldn't consider TH-cam a primarily artistic website. I mean, there are people like you and some other TH-camrs that indeed produce stuff you could call art, but most of the content is indeed just content with the goal to make as much money as possible. So in some basic and not changeable way, crowd funding does destroy art. At least the pure and original state of it. Content can still be art, even if you receive money for fulfilling the patreon's wishes. I would rather say that the artist destroys his own achievements, his art, if he chooses to give up and use his resources just to make up anything that's liked by the crowd but that he wouldn't have created before, following his own path of art.
Crowdfunding has always seemed to be a means rather than an end. The artist basically says, "I need money in order to make art, and I have chosen crowdfunding as a way to get this money." As a means, I think this would be no more restrictive than a commissioned art piece. Other means of income other than "selling" the work (e.g. a job that is not making art) is restricting in its own way by limiting the time that can spent creating art. In terms of paying for medical bills, again it is a way to get the money. It does not solve structural problems of many people being unable to pay for necessary procedures. Let's compare it to another way of getting the money for a medical procedure: loans. Through Patreon, an additional 5% is needed to cover the cost. Even medium length loans at low interest rates are going to cost more in the long run. Given this, I think that crowdfunding is not necessarily as bad as other means (there are other means in current practice that are arguably worse), but it is certainly not a solution to structural problems.
I don't see why many of the concerns with crowdfunding are issues. If you're using GoFundMe or Kickstarter, then you're using their platform. As such, it's only fair that you agree to their terms, whatever that may be. If you don't like that 5% cut, then you have the right to set up your own service. And it's not like crowdfunding sites are intentionally profiting off injuries or tuition costs. That's wholly a coincidence. The fact's that these are occurrences outside of the site's control and that the people using these sites are intentionally and consciously using these sites for their cause. Now that I think about it, the articles you mentioned seemed to have painted the sites as a sort of parasite, but it all seems pretty mutualistic to me.
I'm curious about your exchange with Graham from Patreon, would you be willing to provide a transcript of the exchange? It there a reason you didn't include this in the video? Thanks!
crowdfunding does to an extent allow companies like patreon to profit from the work of creators. however, from the viewars point of view it is better than buying a product for a price as you would in the supermarket as it gives the consumer a choice about wheather they want to pay or how much they want to pay. I would argue for the setting up of a non capitalist crowdfunder in which the crowdfunding company cannot profit, and therefore exploit creators.
I think that that's a typically Liberal response (in the British sense of the word liberal), he's arguing that patreon is trying to improve things within the confines of the existing system (neoliberalism) as opposed to arguing for a different system which may negate these harms.
It of course is, but honestly the same is true for any profit-oriented company and not specifically a problem of crowdfunding. Also, I think you can advocate the improvement of the system for a short term gain while also working to change the system in the long run. Like even if you're a socialist, supporting a Universal Basic Income or healthcare surely is better than opposing those merely because they come from an unfair system.
Haven’t artists always been supported by Patrons, although admittedly there probably wasn’t a middle man taking a cut but I’m sure some patrons got a cut of a sale. I think the crux of the matter is how much profit. Excessive profit is the problem. I value the service that Patreon provides because it allows me an easy way to support the creators I like. And the word creator to me equates with artist. I might not consider you an artist but to just label you as providing content doesn’t seem fair or accurate. Therefore you get Creator with a capital C but without The as God and stuff.
Hey, loved your video, some really thought provoking ideas! I just checked out the further reading you recommended, as I'm writing an essay for my degree on this at the moment - this is a brand new topic for me and I'm struggling to find any more academic sources on crowdfunding specifically on its impact on the art content produced, do you have any more recommended sources on the subject? Would be so greatful for any suggestions! :)
I decided NOT to do patreon even though I like to live stream myself painting, etc. Because I couldn't think of "gifts" that were appropriate to what kind of art I do. I think artists have always had to figure out where in the spectrum of commercial viability they wish to engage in. Further, there is the idea that art SHOULD critique its own culture - but historically speaking, it has been used as propaganda more often then not. eg: well known artists of colour are usually critiquing it's own culture but used by western art movement to further the idea that west is best. -- Use of abstract expressionism by CIA to further cultural imperialism - effectively nearly killing all European representational painting. I think for me, I will be looking for exposure (galleries, prizes, etc) so to find handful of collectors that really believe in what I am about and what I am doing.. Otherwise, I will have to start painting small pretty paintings that I know are marketable. In Australia because there are so many competitions and not enough buyers, market, and galleries - many artists are painting for the judges. Though I must engage somewhat - I refuse to do this.
I think it is important to note that making money is how we live. but art is why we live. so it is necessary for the artist to make money in some way before he can produce art.
I feel like this is an exceptionally narrow view of art. Are Renaissance paintings made with the financial backing of patrons no longer art because capitalistic systems supported their production? Does a Michelangelo portrait of the Medici family, for instance, become "content"? It has a marketable goal; the goal of glorifying the patrons that paid for it. But we don't view that as "content". Video games have the broad marketable goal of "being fun to play", but more and more we're accepting those as art. Even small, subversive films have "marketable goals", it's just a much more niche market. This division between content and art feels...artificial.
Following up on my last comment, have you considered setting a maximum earnings level for yourself? What do you think would be a fair return on your labour? Would you perhaps consider paying forward any additional earnings you make beyond that fair return to support other artists/content providers?
Most of the big TH-cam videos (e.g. Smosh) make content art. Yes it's content for a profit but the profitability of these videos doesn't change that an art goes into making them as successful TH-cam videos (the skill of cat videos is questionable but they do appeal a particular rhetoric that is what I mean by an art), so no crowdfunding isn't ruining art but it may reshape a subcategory of art (I say subcategory because other artforms are tangential but I'm referring specifically to TH-cam videos as art in this case).
Oases is a concept that is thrown around by some anarchist-leaning thinkers - islands of activity which shield their interior from the imperatives inherent in capitalism. These can be community activities, sharing networks, coops etc. So instead of thinking of revolution in the classical sense we may think of the idea that at some point capitalism will gradually change into something else, where it will be difficult to classify as capitalism any more - i.e. an economy where everyone has some share in the means of production. Paul Mason is pushing this view very enthusiastically. In fact it is very difficult to maintain concentrated ownership of the means of production in a knowledge & service economy. The only way it can be done is by selling workers the right to work - i.e. exercise their skills; which in an environment where this practice is less tied on material objects it can be very difficult and it is always very inefficient. The question then becomes are these oases false illusions which prevent genuine change, or are they the seeds of whatever may come next.
My mother is a visual artist, reasonably well regarded within our country. Her gallery takes 40% of her sales plus a further 5% for storage costs- if this fails to cover the cost of the rental, this will be increased. My point is this- have artists ever truly been free from the pressure to crowd please, and to therefore sell? I'm no expert but for the most part artists have lived in poverty except for those who live off inheritance. While systems like patreon do encourage content rather than art- is that really a novelty?
It's so painful to feel forced into crowdfunding to afford vital spine surgery, already feeling tortured and drained by my own body while unregulated capitalist systems did the same to my financial independence, and it hurts even more knowing that it probably won't be the last time despite applying for and still awaiting responses from social healthcare programs for three years straight. It's telling that no entities with such power over the ill and disabled won't directly comment on the injustices of their profiting off of our unprotected right to *live.*
Very good points! I'd like to suggest, in a Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism, one would not have to worry of financial constraints and focus a large portion of time to "art". Maybe see better/faster advancement in many fields? The World May Never Know, Who-Whooooo
It's a catch 22. I want to end the need for crowd funding to exist, but while we've got this shitty economic system, I want to help people make stuff I believe people should see, even if I don't fully agree with it. In trying to help these people, I'm perpetuating the very system I detest.
"if you want to help me give away FREE education... give me money" I don't want to be rude but do you see the contradiction? A more serious concern: don't you think that trying to be as objective as possible and showing both sides of the argument is better for education?( this question isn't related to this video) Thanks!
That's true. But if people don't give money you won't be doing the videos. So, it is not completly "free". So, money can corrupt your content and the way you educate through the videos. All this is hypothetical, I like your content.
Amazing video :) I love philosophy concerning contemporary I really liked the video (your face looked a bit oranger [trumpy] than usual) amazing videos though!!!
It's a nice idea to think that artists can just live off of their passion and desire to create, but they do actually have to survive. Capitalism doesn't lend itself very well to art, so I see crowdfunding as a reaction to this. Yes, it does profit from the unjust system in which we live, but I think the need for it highlights these issues.
I see Graham's point about Patreon being the better of two evils. At least with Patroen artists aren't forced to spend hours and hours away from their art doing completely irrelevant things.
Patreon is better than nothing in most cases but it's still the responsibility of the state to tax the rich and invest that money into things like art and health.
Mike Hermida Human life does not need need art to exist, or even to be happy, therefore it isn't necessarily the state's duty to fund art.
@@mikeh5399 In some sense though (because people are often rightly skeptical of the state) to allow the state to control the majority of ownership of funding art, that is maybe more incidious again, because the state is more likley to want to produce art that is non-critical of the state itself.
Except when sometimes they do have to
As an artist, I would say that crowdfunding has changed both the public's perception of art and how the audience engages with it as no matter what you produce, paintings, illustration, comics, etc, once it goes into a gallery or portfolio it exists as content and whether people choose to consume it as such is entirely up to them. Now whether artists feel pressured to conform to the perceptions of society or forced to make compromises to their vision in order to appeal to their intended audience is an issue in and of itself as in every age and every artistic movement the battle for control of public opinion has been waged between those who would create art, and those who would profit off of the art created by others by acting as intermediaries. And even if you have the resources to support yourself without needing to rely on anyone else, the conflict between creativity and conformity will always exist as no matter how fast you can produce a work of art, that's still time that's being spent doing something other then meeting the needs and necessities of daily life.
I'd rather see creators making content rather than working a desk job and making far smaller amounts of art.
the point is that it's unfair that public services are underfunded and private end users have to pick up the slack
The system is unsustainable, and will not be able to truly pick up the slack of the public services outside of helping those who are desperately in need and cannot be helped by the services.
Many creators end up doing less content anyway. A good way to kill a webcomic is to have the artist make a patreon. you can just hear the cartoon whistle as pages per week ratios fall like a rock. They get too busy doing patreon perks
I think that while crowd-funding may be deep-rooted within a capitalist system with its own flaws, it still increase the fairness of that system more than it would reduce it. It still provides artists with ways to create art that they would not be available in a normal corporate market, and allows consumers to choose to help that art get created. Does it solve the underlying maladies that plague the system? No, but it is still assisting artists create art that would otherwise not have been created.
I really think that crowdfunding is the best option right now. I it's part of a movement (that I love) that turns things around. Because otherwise those people that are now getting crowdfunded would wave to turn to century old institutions like banks for loans and feed a industry that already supports the interests that Spencer used against crowdfunding. At least, I think due to that change in power dynamics, we wont see Patreon supporting wars, or doing any kind of lobby. Changing the flow of money makes companies (especially new ones) think twice before trying to make profit illegally. And if they are making money ot of it I don't see a problem, I see a problem in hurting people for profit.
Remember that Da Vinci and Michelangelo had "Patrons" of their own in the dukes and kings of Europe. In fact those guys told the artists exactly what art to produce, we are very benign patrons by comparison. The 5% middleman is a new development though.
-Terry Fulton
I was thinking the same. Some of the greatest art in the Western canon was produced, on commission, to order.
I am concerned by the assumption that content, when funded by an institution of power, is either not Art or at least less arty. There are myriad works of what would widely be considered "Art" that were commissioned (directly or indirectly) by institutions of power. One could even argue that this describes all art. There are two questions that I think should be considered when reflecting on this assumption that an artist's patronage by an institution that derives a benefit (financial or otherwise) from a work of art has a deleterious effect on the Artiness of the art:
1) Lucan's "Civil War" can either be read as praise of Nero because it recounts the great deeds of Caesar or an indictment of Nero because it describes how the establishment of monarchy was catastrophic for Rome. Does the poem have more Artiness as an encomium or condemnation?
2) The Athenian demos sued Perikles because he had spent too much of the polis' money commissioning the Parthenon sculptures by Phidias (over simplification). Perikles offered to pay for the sculptures personally because this would bring notoriety to him personally rather than to Athens as a whole. The demos refused and funded Phidias out of the public treasury. Would the sculptures of Phidias have been most Arty if they had been paid for by Athens, Perikles, or if Phidias had not been paid?
I don't think each of those questions have correct answers.
If having patrons turns you from an artist to a content generator then Rembrandt is my favorite golden age Dutch content maker
this episode took alot of bravery..you bit the hand that feeds you. ...this was ART .
When are you going to cover Anarchist philosophy? You should film a series similar to your Marxism one.
There's a video on anarchism shot, edited, uploaded, and set for release in the next few months!
+Philosophy Tube Thanks man. Keep up the great work.
When my favorite philosophy guy mentions my favorite gaming journalism guy ahhh
Great episode. I've wondered about this too with scholars who are content creators. When does "Scholarship" become "Content." All of these "pop philosophy" and "pop science" books/blogs/vlogs created by tenured scholars skirt that line between academics and a "marketable goal" as Spencer put it.
I don't see patron influence as a hazard. No matter where you put out art (not for the sake of return but perhaps in hope of one), the same influences will be present. If you are a painter selling in a gallery, you'll notice what sells and the same question arises. It's simple market pressure.
I don't know, I always had this ghastly admiration for capitalism's ability to make money off of its own countermovement. Capitalism has no problem selling you movies that are beautifully tailored to your leftist sentiments. I mean, come on, capitalism turned Che Guevara t-shirts into a fashion statement!
In earnest though, it's important to understand that capitalism is not the evil twin of communism. Not only because they both proved to do a good job on the being-evil front, no, more importantly because where communism relies on one central guiding power, capitalism by design is decentralised. There is nobody who tells a t-shirt shop about some big evil strategy on what socialist stuff they are allowed to sell to appease the red sheep and what they mustn't sell because it will actually spark the revolution. For good or for ill, capitalism isn't any more farsighted and strategic than the guy down the street who sells you those t-shirts.
I know people love to believe in the 1%-Illuminati running the world and sure people's influence is largely proportional to their wealth. But some backroom full of cigar smoke being where some old men decide whether Che Guevara t-shirts are permitted? That's not how it works.
I agree with the video that there was a neo-liberal shift in the financial market.
But this shift was not accompanied by a social change to individualism.
Many here might say something in the line of "Thank god, that we do not fully embrace individualism (vs. collectivism)", but this is actually a very dangerous situation we are in:
In the current state of society big corporations are able to maximise profit, while leaving all the costs of education, health and social security to the state.
Because, corporations can always argue that they have payed their charity already by paying the mandatory charges.
Now add the complex systems of a grown state, for example in health care:
Since the end of World War II the doctor's union managed to create artificial shortage in order to better the lives of their members. This increased health care costs to a point that the state had to cut on many treatments.
Taxes are already very high, about 40% of the total income is taxed away *only* for health care (hidden via different names for mandatory charges which are not legally taxes)
However, nobody here would think of founding a private charity for supporting people with health problems.
Why? Because a) our politicians tell us, that we already have the best health care system of all OECD-countries (which is an outright lie, but who reads OECD-studies) and b) because we already pay a huge part of our incomes to let the state fix this problem.
That's a tripple hit against people of lower incomes: High taxes which are not paying for every necessary treatment and the myth spread by our politicians, that you don't have to help our employees personally, because the state already took care of that.
That's why on this side of the social value scale many differentiate between corporatism (current system, with the range from fascism to neo-liberalism) and fully self-responsible capitalism (there is no organisation which mandates a concept for helping others, which is a good scapegoat for all problems and gives everyone an excuse not to care about anyone).
What do you think?
August Heinrich Barbarossa I think that I don't quite see the connection to what I wrote tbh. Other than that, I agree with a lot of what you said but I'm also curious where you come from that all your politicians, governing parties and opposition alike, perpetuate the same lie about leading the OECD statistics in healthcare when that's not the case.
+Penny Lane You are right... Now that I re-read I'm not that sure why I replied on your comment and not on the video itself.
Maybe it was an Freudian slip to be not alone with my leanings in a Philosophy Tube comment section. Sorry :-)
Austria
Even the main association of Austria' social security ('Hauptverband der Sozialversicherungen') started to use it jokingly (or at least I hope it was a joke and not sincere):
"In dem Land mit dem besten Gesundheitssystem der Welt leben die Menschen nicht in größtmöglicher Gesundheit." (Soziale Sicherheit 1/2016)
//
"In the country with the best health care system of the world, not all people are living with the best possible health" (own translation)
Here is the OECD-study-series I refered to.
www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-at-a-glance-19991312.htm
I suggest to take a "glance" at the tables of page 23 and following, the whole 2015 study has 220 pages.
@@AHBarbarossa why would corporations pay charity without state mandated tax, and would that charity be more than or equal to the money that flows into healthcare and education through taxes?
@Yonatan Beer Believe it or not, because we are humans too and don't want to see suffering in our vicinity and are influenced by photos and films of other countries.
Second because without (in this case privately financed) public healthcare and education you won't get healthy, well-educated people for your company too.
When talking inside my echo chamber I always try to remind people that they won't pay less resources to others and the community if they want to keep their standard of living. The difference is that you pay for things you believe in and politicians (or how that community-coordinating role is called then) have to ask you for that money and explain why their solution is the best.
but historically artist have always made content so they could make art, in MANY circunstances the content IS THE ART,
look at any monument, any renascence work, any surrealist work, ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE MUSIC WORK, have being made towards a public to be consumed first, while at the same time, holding it's status as art.
Well, there was that one album that had only one copy in existence, so I wouldn't say everly single music work was made for a public to consume...
Your2ndPlanB i also have an unique album that i made with my garage band, only three copys ever made, just for us.
don't think rarity is a factor, music is made to be listen, otherwise, is just silence.
You are right but according to Spencer (the man in topic in the video) he loosely defines "art" as a more creative freedom where as "content" is more on the promoted or productive side of things.
mrr Image and i say his classification is equivocated and wrong. art can be at the same time content, they overlap, while a disney movie is just content, it is just a product, blade runner or alien that are both entertaining lucrative movies and pieces of arts in cinema.
+Lucas - I posted earlier today on this feed about it, i agree in a sense. There are of course related arguments that can make this more grey scale such as what is art? How do we value art? Influence vs manipulation to name a few. But generally speaking i agree and think Spencer is bias to his interpretation of the art/content relationship.
The problem arises from the starting point of an adventure in crowd-funding between an established artist A, (say like Olly) and a fledgling artist, B. Since A has already established a solid ground for himself, he is not easily swayed by patrons and their vices. He can further develop his art by taking suggestions in part or full and moves along. In contrast, B is still starting up and still trying to find her niche. This can very easily be dictated by the content-makers, even more so when B is not being very confident about herself in succeeding and established within herself crowd-funding as the primary bread-winning machine unknowing of the consequences towards herself and her art. Money and peer-pressure are two huge insurmountable forces to an artist who is in a desperate (or quasi-desperate) situation. The pro in crowd-funding is that for that artist who just wants to be given a sharp shuttle-off, it is a good start and incentive. But she must keep in mind not to loose herself in the process. So in a nutshell, each artist has to pass approximately through what Olly has passed through. Firmly establishing her ideas at first and then getting deserved credit for the good work and creativity that is being shown. Every one tries to avoid the pain in the process, but I think it is a necessary evil to dirty one's hands as it helps in the growth of one's personality and character. One cannot hope to win in a fair sport competition without putting the effort and sacrifice in a lot of training, right? Nowadays, in my honest opinion, we are being to 'painless-oriented' with all this comfy-technology around us. Describing us as lazy would be an understatement, and crowd funding is a part-consequence of today's Societal Soft-Culture.
I personally would feel kinda guilty making a Patreon, unless my videos are like really really good and I have enough subscribers to make it worth while, otherwise I'd just feel like a money grubber.
I really enjoy your videos, particularly since you've begun using more animation, and definitely think they're worth your being paid for the effort of making them. I understand your reservations about Patreon however, for the reasons Olly gives in this video.
conferencereport I actually think for me its more about being a hater for charity for myself, a bit of a hangover from my conservative childhood.
Thanks for the support though :)
The voice of integrity, but generally people who have integrity don't really need to feel guilty. At the time you made this post your videos were already "really, really good".
1:21 in my experience, Patreon is for those who want to give money directly to a creator they like and whose content or art they already like. They’re giving money to something already there or that they enjoy. They know what they’re getting. Kickstarter is like a preorder service where you give money in order to fund a project and that project in turn will give you products related to the project that you think you will like.
Absolutely brilliant video. Thanks! What really struck me though, was not the part about art becoming content, but the part about crowdfunding sites profiting off of the capitalistic structure of society. It reminded me a bit about your discussion of the trolley problem, that we don't look beyond it and wonder what made us have to choose either of the bad things. (My English is far from perfect, I'm sorry xD)
I have to give Patreon kudos for even responding at all.
In the same vein, we could also ask the question of whether piracy (and other means of free wide distribution) has made it possible for a resurgence of originality in music. By 'liberating' artists from the economic pressure of record labels and the 'music industry', artists are more free to experiment and try new ideas that would be deemed 'too risky' by corporate interests. This of course means that artists no longer can live of their music, and that the production quality of the music will suffer, but is this necessarily a bad thing?
The ultimate question then becomes, *who* is art being made *for*? Is it for the sake of the artist, or for the spectator? Should art be an altruistic endeavor? Fun questions to think about.
As soon as you introduce any kind of metric be it views, likes, clicks, sales, Patreon supporters or just the number of people who show up to a performance, then you run the risk of changing what you do to increase or, at least, maintain that number and if you don't care about any kind of metric, then there's no point in making your work publicly available. I think think Patreon is one of the least risky metrics in this sense because, for the most part, supporters are paying creators to continue what they were already doing. Admittedly, this carries a risk of stymieing a creators development, but every creator risks losing their audience when the change, no matter what metric they're using. Also, while crowdfunding companies may profit off of the broken system, they also provide us with a way to work around it so, unless/until there's a way to fix the system and crowdfunding companies have enough power to actively and effectively oppose that fix, then I think that they're far more of an asset than a liability.
Our Aesthetics professor talked about this issue too but instead of focusing on economic restraints he talked about the limits that are put on artists who are still in education. They are taught different techniques and methods of creating art and generally are helped to become a better artist most of the time. And whatever you think about these kind of art degrees, they are undoubtly becoming more popular. But on the other hand these artists, just like anyone else, have to finish exams and have to present their work in front of teachers and eventually a jury to be able to graduate. He said that this would, just like patreon would, create limits for the artist, because they would have to create art for their teachers, or in your example the patreons and not just for the sake of art. He argued that art made especially for someone, with the intend to please others, shouldn't be called art whatever the circumstances may be.
I came across this channel today and I really hope it gets huge. Excellent content, keep it up, sir.
+Corey LaGray thanks! Welcome to the little community!
Crowdfunding isn't the core issue here, artists having to create art in order to survive financially is the problem, always have been, yet only the rich and the elite have been capable of creating works without having to depend on them. Would it really be better if the only art there was never meant to be profitable? Is art created with comercial goals in mind unworthy of being called art? I've seen purist art films that bored me to tears and tv advertisements that pulled my heartstrings, so does it really matter in the end?
I can agree with you and agree with the head of marketing on Patreon. Many people struggle with trying to get commissions or freelance work and are forced to get a part-time job. As someone that manages two artists, as well as trying to promote myself in different medias, we'd all much rather draw content as the "Part-time job" bit, because it's doing something we love, while getting paid for it. However, there are many patreon creators who are still allowed enough time to do their regular commissions, and have opportunity to be creative and have fun on their spare time, without too much stress.
Sometimes patrons on patreon support the creator because they just love their stuff in general or love the creator enough to just give a bit of money monthly to send them off to do their own thing.
Not to mention, 5% is nothing compared to the almost 30% tax you get on paychecks. In America, we get income tax, but with crowdfunding sites we get much more freedom and are allowed to be riskier in our approach and attempts to give new ideas as well as a community.
This was a great video.
The Benjamin passage you quoted reminded me of 'satire' and stand-up. So long as those things are moulded to be profitable, they stand to benefit from being paradoxical - they aim to punch down and legitimate status quo norms for the sake of filling their artists' wallets.
As to crowdfunding in general, I couldn't agree more with Spencer about crowdfunding healthcare, BUT 'art' gets a bit iffy and there is a spectrum. Some people will see patreon as a way to be paid for your art - or rather, content - but patreon frames itself as being an artist's platform by not being about 'getting paid', but about, in their own words, *'support'*. You don't pay X, you support them. And that's where you need to consider your relationship with your creators and how you fund.
For example, I'm glad you brought up Laura K Buzz. She recently put out an article that I felt was very misguided, distasteful, spiteful, and a whole host of other perjoratives. For a while I considered withdrawing / reducing my support after this month's payment, but then I thought about how my money should be that - *support*. If I punitively withold my money then I reinforce the idea that Laura should make content that I want (and I will concede that there's some grey ground here because I thought the article was pretty unethical, not 'an article I disagreed with'), rather than support which is me wanting Laura to keep working and growing, and I should only stop paying when I no longer wish to or can't afford to.
I think charity its still good for specific content to exist, like a certain channel of philosophy managed by a certain person named Olly XD. That being said, the article really gives us something to think about. Good episode :)
I see this has been a number of years, but as I also use Patreon to publish my own content, I'm glad for its existence as a platform and the effort to make it a good platform for the purpose. I'm not making money from it at this time, and I have made rather little money off it over the years that I have been publishing. But, I get to make my content, self-publish, and feel the esteem of accomplishment over time as I develop my content and mature as a creator. I'm totally able to make what I want to create and publish it without concern for marketability in the largest measure due to a full-time career as a networking technology consultant, so it is a superb gap between my hobbyist content as an amateur creative writer and the professional content of full-time artists, performers, musicians, and all the other creators using Patreon. But, in addition to the concerns of crowdfunding for artists, the fact that concerns were described for healthcare, legal services, adoption, or other pro-social purposes is a valuable portion of the conversation. If the idea proliferates that personal wealth should not contribute to community good except by personal choice, I cannot imagine the prolonged existence of a functional government. That's not a claim that most existing governments are especially high-functioning now, but it is something worth contrasting.
Well. I quite agree. When you belong to a sector or industry, you can't openly criticize it because it will certainly bounce back. That is why the "catalyst of change" can only work from within to create a change for the better. Finger-pointing does NO HELP to provide a lasting and efficient solution to social problems. Being a part of any institution is enough challenge to bear because you can either be part of its ROT or be the PEST-killer to clean up the ROT.
I don't see anything new about crowdfunding putting pressure on the artist to be commercially viable, that is part of any form of selling art. It's up to the artist how much they want to bend to what they think the market wants, or to not bend at all. I think the internet facilitates meeting a lot of like minded people, and successful websites are a good platform and deserve to be paid for the work they do, they take a cut like how an agent or an art gallery would. I think there is nothing new about the first point it's just a modern version of an age old dilemma for artists, which punks would call selling out or staying true to their art.
The thing about wasting people's time selling mugs or t shirts or whatever is pretty valid. I remember first noticing this for webcomic creators, who couldn't make any money from doing daily webcomics, so they all made merchandise based on their webcomics and a lot of them got by doing that. That's not really making art and it is stealing time and effort from making art. I see that as on the side merchandising/ whatever business, it's up to the artist how much they want to spend on that, but it's a different thing altogether to making art.
I guess in some kind of socialist utopia all artists wouldn't have to do these things. They'd get some kind of art grant. But art grants do exist in a lot of countries, and in England they aren't hard to get, as long as you fulfill all the criteria and know how to apply for one. Do they make good art? I'd say for the most part not. Would you rather art was swayed by commercial markets or bureaucratic box ticking exercises? You seem to want to untangle art making from western capitalism, and that is entirely possible, the artist just shouldn't care if his art is commercially viable or not, and then job done.
I think the distinction between «art» and «content» is very similar to
the distinction between the much older distinction between «fine» and
«pop» art. Content is modern pop art.
It is still the case that the best way to get patron is to produce high-quality art. We, as public, have good tastes, and good quality art and content consistently perform better in the marketplace than bad quality art and content.
I think the socio-economo-political criticism of crowdfunding is extremely relevant. I think that systematic public funding of art would promote creativity more than crowdfunding does, so we should head towards that, but crowdfunding is still better than what we had before.
I pay 49 CD$ a month in total for my internet subscription and get all my art through the internet. Make that 50. The reason I'm paying for that is to access art and content. But my service providers get to take all the money for that in exchange for doing mostly nothing except owning, gatekeeping and maintaining infrastructures that already exist. (Other companies also expand and developp their infrastructures, but the company I buy from doesn't). I envision a future where access to the internet becomes public, and inwhich at least half the money we pay to access the internet is funneled towards artists and content creators in accordance to an incentive principles that maximizes humanity's overall creativity (and that means we have artists who are : 1- Financially secure 2- Do not need to create art for money, but instead have all liberty to create art for itself).
Olly's hair game is on fleek
A topic I don't think you have covered yet that would make an interesting discussion is surveillance. There are a lot of serious, legitimate questions that currently have very real consequences. Is fighting crime enough justification for mass surveillance? What are the philosophical arguments against "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear"? Would ensuring total government transparency be a fair tradeoff for mass surveillance? How much trust should we put in the government to do what is best? What gives people the right to privacy? What even is privacy anyway? Security is often used to justify thinly veiled power-grabs, so how can we know when increases in surveillance are in response to legitimate threats? When does the government become more of a threat than the outside threat they are supposedly protecting people from?
As an artist, I decided to make art that would sell. So, that I could spend my time putting paint on canvas. If you are young and have tons of energy and a plan, you can do two jobs at once. At some point, I started feeling it. The fatigue. What to do? The road I took provided a decent income, a little recognition, travel, fun and less headaches than the graphic artist/marketing agency that I turned out to hate. Of course, many people around me helped and supported me. Now, an old man, it was fun and I could have done much worse.
I am an anarchist who was hesitant to set up a patreon, in the end it was better than nothing at all, but I really needed the money to upgrade my equipment. so I operate under the understanding that neoliberalism is the problem and this is the only way I can partially circumvent the neoliberal capitalist system and make my videos.
1. Art is supposed to help you with certain aspects for your life (see Alain de Button): make big ideas more digestible, remind you of certain feelings, help you cope with certain situations etc.
2. a business, on the most basic level, is working to fulfill someone elses needs in return for funds
If you strip away the notion that art is supposed to be "just for arts sake", then patreon, just like ebay / booking.com / amazon etc., is just technology that makes it easier for a great number of suppliers to meet an even bigger number of customers.
It sounds like Spencer might be setting up a false dichotomy or two. In particular, I don't think artistic merit and popular appeal are mutually exclusive, or even really in opposition; the art vs. content distinction smacks of snobbery.
In addition, it is possible to both give charitably AND campaign for wholesale socioeconomic change. If someone uses the fact that they gave to a crowdfuning page as justification for complacently supporting an unfair system, then we have a real problem. But the problem is with the complacency, not the giving.
At least with crowdfunding, the people who finance the creation of content are the same people who probably already like the content/art that the creator was producing to begin with. Unlike traditional financing, an artist using crowdfunding has virtually unlimited potential donors, so if one person doesn't like the type of content that would have been created, someone else will, and THAT person will donate. So the artist is basically free to create anything as long as SOMEONE wants to see it. The alternative is to go with a single backer, like the way movies are financed, but with limited options, the studios and backers have much more say in what does and doesn't get funded.
So what other alternatives are there? We could have a program to publicly fund artists through taxation, but then who gets to decide which artists get money and which ones don't? A government agency is going to have even more power to censor content than a private backer, because whereas banks and sponsors are in competition with each other, governments are monopolies. There's also the possibility of using your own resources to fund your art, but since most people don't have many resources, the result is that a lot of art goes uncreated. (I've got dozens of ideas for novels, short films, plays, feature films, and satirical sketches that never get made, because my "day" job takes up all my time and energy.)
I've always been against needing my artistic pursuits to make me money. And I do mean that I'm against it, personally; it's not something I believe is "right", or something I would hold others to. I've never really thought of the reasons, but this video was excellent and made me further consider it. Interestingly enough, I wouldn't personally consider vlog-type vidoes I watch on TH-cam to be "art". (And I don't mean this as a disrespect; I've made a few vlog-type TH-cam videos too and I wouldn't consider them as art either.)
My reasons for thinking art and money should be separate:
1. To me, art should be purely personal. If there's any external vested interests, it loses that personal touch that - to me - makes art, art. I think this is a big part of why music labels and artistes get on so "infamously"; it's because the label is trying to make money. And there's nothing wrong with that. They are employed too, they have families to feed, etc. But the artist who is "trying to stay true to who they are" but consciously chooses to sign to a record label - whose primary purpose is to make money - will almost always run into difficulties. Of course, this is a choice. You don't have to make money doing what you love. You can just do it anyway because you love it and make money some other way. Which brings me to my second point...
2. Everyone is an artist. There's not some special set of people out there who just "have" to make art and are unique because they are artistic. To be human is to be artistic. It's part of the human experience. Everyone I know is artistic and everyone I know makes art, in some way. And I think a big part of the reason I'm against asking for money for my art is because it strikes me as entitled (this is only MY opinion). Maybe because I didn't grow up in a situation where you could really spend money on less than essential things so, in my mind, there are so much better things people could be doing with their money. And especially because I have so many more options. Of course I know that for everyone, this is not the case, and I know that it's a choice individuals make and you can't tell people what to do with their money. But I am cautious of the way it seems to be fashionable to sort of *expect* ...maybe that's the wrong word...(maybe WANT?) to make money from your art, or your passion. At the end of the day, this is just a personal feeling and I would never and HAVE never felt critical of people who use crowdfunding for their art. I think people should just do whatever they want - if it's making you happy, as long as it's not harming anyone, I'm not going to spend too much energy thinking about it .
One extremely large point about crowd funding that must be addressed is the crowd part. A very valid argument could be made that crowd funding created a more open market of ideas. Rather than needing to do what a single benefactor dictates, it allows a fundee to do something they enjoy. Odds are for any given interest, at least 10 financially sound people are into it too. It frees the ideas from the standard societal structure. In theory, anyway. I will admit that i don't know much about it in practice.
I'm a fine art student and I'm always trying to think of stuff to make and sometimes I would need money for it but yea the problem is what you outlined and sometimes this stops me from making the things I want to make . And some of the people studying with me are building bars and other things to sell beer to get money .but not everyone wants to build bars . And yeah your thoughts make sense .
And I feel like people need to remind each other what art is and what it can be and that some stuff is art so they can appreciate it better even if it isn't their ideal
Yo have you read Adorno and Horkheimer? Because this question is SO Adorno and Horkheimer. You should read Adorno and Horkheimer! Adorno and Horkheimer, Adorno and Horkheimer. You mention them five times, and they'll appear, that's how you summon them -- they're just like Betelgeuse, if Betelgeuse was marxist. Btw, that version of the movie would be amazing, fucking ghost Michael Keaton seizing the means of production and shit.
isn't crowd funding preferable? the artist is getting time and monetary backing to create their art. w/o the need for being controlled or censored by some parent company. how i see it crowd funding sites are kinda cutting out the middle man it goes from consumer straight to artist with a small finders fee, after that it would be up to the artist to play more towards the consumer.
both sides can have the freedom to give and create at their leisure, and the crowd funding company gets payed .05 cents on every dollar the artists gets for using the site, otherwise both the consumer and artist are allowed to make and spend money any way they see fit like at convention, or ebay (first thing that came to mind). i think it's the more ideal way to gain backers (artistically, politically, ect., ect.). some huge warning signs that would pop up is if artists gaining money start losing money and then the company's start penalizing them, anything beyond just closing their account i think would be malicious.
I don't think it was really implied that it wasn't preferable. What is better as monetary backing might be a matter of opinion that could shift dependant on the kind of art or content to be created? I've been part of two gaming projects that were crowd funded on Kickstarter, one that was funded by a government scheme, a handful that were publisher backed, and a couple that were entirely independent, and in all cases there are varying constraints on creativity in order to meet either publisher demands or simply to ensure success with a target audience. I think the only way to be entirely free of those kinds of constraints is to create for no audience or profit, but often constraints are what encourage creativity.
Reanimated Willow and that in part was something I talked about. If the art is good then people will always want to buy. Or not. I always have this idea in my head that artists are poor And destitute(i.e. van goph)
The freedom comes from the artist being able to make his art unhindered by anyone else. Anything can be artistic like sweeping or fighting, it doesn't mean people always want to pay for it.
What I have missed in this video is some alternative to crowdfunding system as it is now. It is quite obvious that for health issues the alternative is the health care system provided by government, although I do not believe that such system can totally replace charity. For the art in general it is not so obvious - should art be provided by government? Should youtube bloggers apply for some scholarships? I know that there are public theaters and public movies (full disclosure - I am not a fan of that), but should all art be sustain like that? Who would judge whether ‘Phillosophy tube’ is more valuable that youtube channel with movie reviews? And why should a taxpayer support movie reviews if he does not like watching them? Any thoughts on that? Ideas for alternative?
I think Adorno needs to be mentioned here, in the context of the 'commodification' of art. Where Adorno was speaking mainly of the 'culture industry' that arose in the early 20th century, we can probably use it to critique crowdfunding in a similar way.
As Olly mentioned in the video, using crowdfunding could put pressure on a creator to ignore personal expression, or nebulous concepts such as 'artistic merit', in favour of creating 'content', i.e. things that are designed to appeal to as large a group as possible. There is however another feedback loop, in which patrons will demand 'more of the same', and the creator will feel pressured to give in to this demand. In this way, we run the risk of 'stagnating' culture, getting stuck in familiar patterns.
On a more conceptual level, the directness of crowdfunding might turn art from something created 'in, of and for itself' into something 'paid for and (by extention) created for' specific people. This is the very definition of being a commodity.
If you want to know exactly why this is bad, i recommend you read the original paper. It's not that long.
www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwisgaqN1ZbPAhWJvRoKHQLrBm0QFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sociosite.net%2Ftopics%2Ftexts%2Fadorno_culture_reconsidered.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHpVupno8mm30c5GqNXU_H-QjOVXQ&sig2=xpKQ5QzhPvpucl6jpoKZfA&cad=rja
(p.s. Adorno hated jazz, so he wasn't an all round ok guy. Just wanted to make this clear)
I'd really love to live in the world this Jacobin writer thought we had before crowd funding, when artists could just make art however they felt like and didn't need money to eat or pay rent.
God why is this guy's voice so damn familiar
all english people sound the same.
All Ollie needs to do now is mention Gavin Dunne and we'll have the full set!
This channel is GOLD thank you!!!
Thanks! Welcome!
Perhaps one can make the distinction between 'inspired' art (art which sort of comes forth without any (seemingly) motivation behind it but rather it comes from your own sort of habitual response to the world) and 'motivated' art, where the art is motivated by something in addition to just making it. It could be either money, joy, a romantic gesture and so on. I think the tricky thing is though that 'motivated' art could become 'inspired art' just through sheer repetition, so what I am saying is that perhaps it isn't relevant to focus on how pure art is or how it comes about, but rather the ethics of the realized work itself. And maybe what sort of circumstances produces which type of art (if it possible to make those distinctions). Maybe we'll find out crowdfunding produces X type of art, while white collaring it and doing art on weekends produce Y type of art and so on. So you know which circumstances to place yourself in in order to produce the sort of art you want to produce.
I think it's interesting how the moral status of charity and tax-funded campaigns differ: In a neoliberal system it is widely accepted that giving money to charity is a good thing to do when you are in the position to do so. Yet, unless you agree with Peter Singer, donating money usually is supererogatory, ergo not a duty. Were the same things funded by taxes, such an act would be a duty. One thing that strikes me is the position of rich people, the winners in neoliberal systems: When they donate in their system, they usually still are wealthy since they donate just a reasonable amount of money AND additionally they earn social and/or moral praise. People point to them and say "How generous of them to donate some of their hard-earned money!". In tax-based systems wealthy people would just perform the same action as a duty (paying taxes instead of giving money to charity), meaning that the moral and/or social praise might disappear.
In a way it stifles creativity, since creators who depend on crowdfunding become less inclined to try out new things out of fear of losing suppprters.
Really enjoying the issues you bring up and the diverse perspectives/opinions from you and your sources. I actually wanted to do something like this myself. What degree did you get? I'm currently majoring Philo and CS.
MA in philosophy :)
Crowdfunding is a solution within capitalism. It's there to both support and leech off of creativity. As a moral alternative to what exists in our society currently it feels like an improvement, and it's worth noting that I anecdotally see very original and niche content, possibly suggesting the constrains on making things people "want to see" might be more than offset by the platform it offers to connect to a wider audience.
the problem with the article is that it basically ignores the fact that art at its basics isn't a necessity, without the emergence of crowd funding the artist by proxy have to confirm to the status quo and create content to survive before they to create the art that they are interested in.
in fact it should be the opposite since the emergence of crowd funding an artist could create what ever they desire and get rewarded for their work much quicker then ever before and reach a bigger global audience.
I'm for Patreon because of you or other creators who bridge the gap between "higher level content" and normal content. Through Patreon, I can support artists to make more and diverse work so I don't see it as content unless the Patreon user is asking for money to pay for "content". I agree that Content vs Art is a spectrum because there's no clear, black or white answer to what people do on Patreon. Kickstarter helped me support The Oatmeal and his Exploding Kittens project which would have never been published because of how eccentric it is.
ThioJoe often talks about how the videos which he enjoys making the most are watched the least on his channel and vice versa. However, your philosophy videos feel every bit as genuine as those you made years ago. Who could have ever guessed: there might not be a simple answer?
Art vs. content isn't really a dichotomy. The content that you make appeals to certain people, and it appeals to you. Both you and your audience share this same interest. So if you are making content based on what you like, what you are passionate about, odds are that it will appeal to your audience too. So unless you were going to completely break away from your core supporters, like switching your channel from discussing philosophy to performing covers of pop songs, there is no conflict. Content and art (or audience focused vs. personal driven) are in harmony. Sure, you might do some videos that are more focused on what your audience wants rather than what you are interested in, but even those are probably going to have some appeal to you. I like programming computers. I've never had any desire to work in finance (and money stresses me out). Yet I work for a financial firm as a programmer. I don't have an interest in the financial aspect of the company, but I enjoy figuring out solutions to problems and writing code just as much there as I do when I write as a hobby.
As far as the issues with crowdfunding for things like taking care of personal expenses, I absolutely agree. It highlights a major problem we have today, but only provides a stop-gap measure, not a sustainable solution.
Have you considered using a non-profit crowdfunding service rather that Patreon? Most of them are pretty small and are aimed at co-operatives and social enterprises, and obviously don't have the brand familiarity of the big players like Patreon and Kickstarter, but at least you know that profits are being channeled back into the company, or toward making positive social change, rather than enriching owners and shareholders.
this is an issue but it is more larger than, and predates crowd-funding. just about any band you can think of has been accused of "selling out" which essentially means sacrificing innovative and creative spunk in favor of increased financial gain by appealing to a wider audience as possible, whilst still retaining the bare minimum amount of soul that makes that band what it is. that said I can see how this problem could be exacerbated by crowd funding due to the more direct link between the consumer and the artist and the way in which the artist is more dependent on the consumer than would otherwise be the case in more traditional funding methods such as being given a lump sum as part of signing to a record label.
my opinion is at worst crowd-funding doesn't destroy art but dilutes it and at best gives the artist a more intimate connection with the audience and takes some of the power back from the corporate organizations whose only interest is creating profit for their shareholders.
The point that was made by Benjamin in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" about how these crowdfunding services wouldn't be necessary if the rich were taxed properly in the first place made me think of something. If I knew that, say, 15% of my taxes were going towards something that I didn't support (like a war, maybe) then I can't choose to only pay the 85% of my taxes that would pay for things that I do support. Not without getting in trouble with the government, at least. However, by lowering taxes and increasing services where I can choose exactly where my money goes, I can use my money to support only those causes that I endorse.
In America, it seems like the only thing politicians care about is finances. That, and the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the way we spend money is a form of free speech, leads me to think that we may be better off switching from normal taxes to a system resembling a crowdfunding site where people would still be required to spend whatever percentage of their income is currently taken out for taxes, but they could choose where that money goes. Those projects and services that the people want will get funded while those that the people do not want would have to cut back. That would mean that the rich would have their interests served more easily than most others, however the rich are already able to hire lobbyists to get laws that serve their interests passed already. At least with this system the people would have a chance to shift things to more closely resemble actual national interests.
I know this doesn't quite stick to the subject of art in the video, but government grants for art and artists could become a more prominent thing if that is what the people decide.
You bring up an interesting point, but we have have to ask if the people at large would use their extra money to actually give or support industries/practices they prefer, or if they would simply engage in more hedonism or conspicuous spending (which I don't mean to imply are inherently "bad", but if the extra resources are going towards that as opposed to many of what our taxes fund, I don't know how long such a system would remain stable)
That's why I said that whatever percentage of your income is currently paid in taxes would be required to go into this service. So, if you're currently paying 7% of your income in taxes, then you would be legally required to pay a minimum of 7% of your income in services. The difference is that you decide how much of that 7% is allocated to things like education, military, art, infrastructure or whatever else is available.
Yeah I saw that. That's smart: to have everyone required to give some percentage to avoid lazy or greedy people. But what if a huge percentage all prioritize entertainment, the arts, etc and infrastructure and military, because they are so "unseen" in comparison, get neglected in a detrimental way?
Can you do a video on why it hurts when people don’t say ‘Thank You’ even though you know that you should not always expect gratitude.
This is a degrading subject but I have reason to believe it is art The better analogy is that this kind of artwork acts like a language of recursive internet memes, and though the filmstrip is not fully organized the mind puts it together without our noticing consciously. Tosh.0 is another good example of where this new language of public offerings on the net. It may seem undignified but it feels good to be entertained and engaging!
Producing monetisable content and producing creative/experimental content are not mutually exclusive. Assuming 9-5, 5 days a week is the normal working hours, an artist could produce art for patrons or paying customers in those working hours, and then create experimental and personal art on the weekend. This is just an example though and I don't feel it is Ideal. It would be exhausting to put that many hours into ones art. Ideally, someone would just do their own thing, and enough people would like it that it would fund the artist.
I think the problem (or not, if you prefer the money) is the creeping hand of the market. Where a content creator slowly starts to change their content into something that 'the masses' want. A feedback loop where a bit more money coming from a certain style causes that style to be produced more which leads to even more money. But I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. There appear to be enough customers of varying tastes to fund a wide variety of artists and styles. But an artist is not being stopped from creating experimental work that wont make money. They simply cannot make exclusively these work.
While I agree with a lot of what you said regarding the potential pitfalls of crowdfunding in the larger scope of capitalism and as it reaches into all aspects of life including health care I believe the initial premise, regarding art, is flawed. I don't think we need to draw a distinct line between "content" and art. Now, of course we could have a long discussion about what "content" means, in the way aesthetics seeks to understand art...but if we skip that for now I think we can easily say that while not all "content" is art, some "content" is, and perhaps, depending on how one defines "content, all art is "content"...in the same way that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Whether we are talking about art on youtube, Hollywood or indie film, music or painting - it being made to make money, and the creator's process being influenced by the need to make money, doesn't diminish the quality of the art. Artists have always had to skew their art a certain way in order to make money. It may be unfortunate, and we might make a case that it in some ways hinders creativity and/or expression but it doesn't make their work not art. Simply think of something that you can't deny is art in any medium. It was probably made for money. If you think of classical composers like Mozart, they often worked for wealthy families and nobility who would give them money and a place to live in exchange for regular output of compositions. These wealthy supporters were called Patrons (I'm guessing its where Patreon gets its name). If you think of a film, like the Wizard of Oz - it was made by a major studio for the purposes of making money - things from the text were changed in the film just to make it more sellable. That doesn't change the fact that the film on its own is a wonderful piece of art. The only real difference between crowdfunding and patrons or studios, etc. is who is doing the funding. Instead of a few people with a lot of money paying to have art made, lots of people, average people, contribute a little bit each to get art made. In some ways this is a good thing for creativity and art. Going back to the Mozart example, he had one person with specific tastes and ideas he had to format his music to please. With a larger group of people contributing there are more tastes and ideas and kinds of people to please which opens the door to more possibilities. Of course there is the issue of you can't please everyone but that is a problem of art regardless. Finally, I will say that I think a lot of these ideas come from the pre-conceived notion of the "starving artist" - this idea that if you're not suffering for your art it isn't any good. That's just wrong and it contributes to a lot of problems of the artist, especially when trying to get paid.
I just wanted to ask if you plan to upload something about metaphysics in the near future, because I find it really interesting :) And good video btw :)
Maybe the only time I've heard a critical TH-cam video say "we approached X" and instead of following up with "they declined to comment" actually they did answer?? Wow.
It seems like not all crowdfunding platforms can be lumped into the one category. There seems to be a bit of a spectrum between charity based crowdfunding and content/product based crowdfunding. A platform like Kickstarter is designed to act as a means to raise funds from interested parties to produce products or back projects based upon audience/customer interest in those things. Patreon might sit somewhere in between those poles. It seems to me that GoFundMe is the most problematic kind of crowdfunding platforms, given that it exists in that vacuum where one would hope tax funded solutions and government programs should exists as was touched on. There's probably not a huge amount of space for purely artistic and creative endeavours if you're down at the bottom of the Maslow triangle of good times =P
I don't really see how patreon is any different from normal advertising. Ok, the methods (youtube, patreon ect) mean that there can be a more direct relationship between the creators and the funders, which could increase the diversity of the media, and the money might be stread out a little more.
Making your 'art' with your patreons in mind (or the potential for views, shares, likes) is no different from TH-cams advertiser friendly guide lines that have caused a bit of an uproar.
Oops, I forgot to point out something else. The great Renaissance artists worked on commission. How's that different from some people making monthly donations to artists?
On one hand... okay, this is philosophy, and it is very important to discuss things in the ideological level, but Patreon is a service. A platform that took design (from concept to interaction to usability to interface), that took people, servers and money to create and still takes to maintain, and yeah, even taking all of that into consideration, they profit -- after all, they created something. And creators should earn their due, isn't that the whole point?
And you're choosing to use their service. If you were to ask for a more direct form donnation, and keep up manually with all the people donating, remind them to donate regularly, manage the organization and delivery of incentives and perks for each person and make the whole process convenient enough for them, I'm pretty sure that would take a lot more of your, or anyone's, time. So, really, the criticism seems to be more torwards the very process of monetization -- and artists gotta eat. If we really had a government model that provided enough incentives for artists to express their subjectivity, by, say, taxing the rich more, either art would have to be subjected to a "quality" evaluation -- having to meet some quantifiable standards, which I'm sure the same people would argue that also 'destroys art', or it would be a system that's VERY easy to abuse -- can I make a line on a paper, call it art and expect payment? I really can't think of a solution to that that doesn't make the whole thing super arbitrary, since, I mean, it's art. The best solution I see really is what crowdfunding does -- if art is supposed to affect people, the content model makes sure that people become the judges of what is affecting them, at least to some level. That's not perfect, but it's sure as hell better than having corporations decide that for you.
I adore crowdfunding. Patreon is a very good solution, so much so that I feel compelled to defend it against any kind of criticism (which, yeah, it's not a very good attitude to have either), just out of fear it may lose its momentum; that if people start giving up on it, we just might go back to that dark, dark place. If that author you mentioned fears crowdfunding turns people's expectations into a deciding factor, without it we have what investors/producers/stakeholders/publishers/etc THINK are people's expectations being THE deciding factor.
I'm generalizing the hell out of this, yeah, and my position is obviously not the best. Just because a solution is good, doesn't mean we shouldn't question it, or the system that made it necessary. But being in said system, money being a limited and needed resource, and with crowdfunding being still a somewhat recently emerging model, as directors, game developers, eastern and western animators begin to test its waters for higher productions that would otherwise never get made, I feel that targetting our rightful insatisfaction with the problem at one of the best solutions might not be the beest idea.
Interesting discussion btw, absolutely love the channel!
(Believe it or not this comment is not sponsored by Patreon :"D)
So my thought on the whole content vs art thing is that what you produce will only change if what you currently offer isn't valued by people. If your art is valued enough by people then you'll get the financial support from some of them. If the art you make isn't valued then why should you receive any sort of financial support for it? If it's overall not valued then you really should look to do something that does bring value to people.
When I read the title, I immediately thought „No", because many artists were financially depending on people liking and buying their stuff. Many painters but also musicians and writers. Basically most artists are in some way supported and therefore not 100 % doing whatever they'd like to. However, when you introduced the difference between art and content I kinda changed my opinion. It's this old discussion of when art or the style of your favourite band changes and you have the feeling that it becomes a commercially motivated kind of art. Content, as you said. On the other hand, I wouldn't consider TH-cam a primarily artistic website. I mean, there are people like you and some other TH-camrs that indeed produce stuff you could call art, but most of the content is indeed just content with the goal to make as much money as possible. So in some basic and not changeable way, crowd funding does destroy art. At least the pure and original state of it. Content can still be art, even if you receive money for fulfilling the patreon's wishes. I would rather say that the artist destroys his own achievements, his art, if he chooses to give up and use his resources just to make up anything that's liked by the crowd but that he wouldn't have created before, following his own path of art.
Crowdfunding has always seemed to be a means rather than an end. The artist basically says, "I need money in order to make art, and I have chosen crowdfunding as a way to get this money." As a means, I think this would be no more restrictive than a commissioned art piece. Other means of income other than "selling" the work (e.g. a job that is not making art) is restricting in its own way by limiting the time that can spent creating art.
In terms of paying for medical bills, again it is a way to get the money. It does not solve structural problems of many people being unable to pay for necessary procedures. Let's compare it to another way of getting the money for a medical procedure: loans. Through Patreon, an additional 5% is needed to cover the cost. Even medium length loans at low interest rates are going to cost more in the long run.
Given this, I think that crowdfunding is not necessarily as bad as other means (there are other means in current practice that are arguably worse), but it is certainly not a solution to structural problems.
I don't see why many of the concerns with crowdfunding are issues. If you're using GoFundMe or Kickstarter, then you're using their platform. As such, it's only fair that you agree to their terms, whatever that may be. If you don't like that 5% cut, then you have the right to set up your own service.
And it's not like crowdfunding sites are intentionally profiting off injuries or tuition costs. That's wholly a coincidence. The fact's that these are occurrences outside of the site's control and that the people using these sites are intentionally and consciously using these sites for their cause. Now that I think about it, the articles you mentioned seemed to have painted the sites as a sort of parasite, but it all seems pretty mutualistic to me.
Of course they don't have the power to create situations which help them, but they are incentivised to not help because they profit off of it.
I'm curious about your exchange with Graham from Patreon, would you be willing to provide a transcript of the exchange? It there a reason you didn't include this in the video?
Thanks!
crowdfunding does to an extent allow companies like patreon to profit from the work of creators. however, from the viewars point of view it is better than buying a product for a price as you would in the supermarket as it gives the consumer a choice about wheather they want to pay or how much they want to pay. I would argue for the setting up of a non capitalist crowdfunder in which the crowdfunding company cannot profit, and therefore exploit creators.
I like the standardized thumbnails better. Maybe you could spice them up, but keep them all similar.
That was intense.
Creativity is improved by constraints not hampered by it, as such Spencer's argument about creativity isn't iron clad.
I think that that's a typically Liberal response (in the British sense of the word liberal), he's arguing that patreon is trying to improve things within the confines of the existing system (neoliberalism) as opposed to arguing for a different system which may negate these harms.
It of course is, but honestly the same is true for any profit-oriented company and not specifically a problem of crowdfunding.
Also, I think you can advocate the improvement of the system for a short term gain while also working to change the system in the long run. Like even if you're a socialist, supporting a Universal Basic Income or healthcare surely is better than opposing those merely because they come from an unfair system.
Haven’t artists always been supported by Patrons, although admittedly there probably wasn’t a middle man taking a cut but I’m sure some patrons got a cut of a sale. I think the crux of the matter is how much profit. Excessive profit is the problem. I value the service that Patreon provides because it allows me an easy way to support the creators I like. And the word creator to me equates with artist. I might not consider you an artist but to just label you as providing content doesn’t seem fair or accurate. Therefore you get Creator with a capital C but without The as God and stuff.
Hey, loved your video, some really thought provoking ideas! I just checked out the further reading you recommended, as I'm writing an essay for my degree on this at the moment - this is a brand new topic for me and I'm struggling to find any more academic sources on crowdfunding specifically on its impact on the art content produced, do you have any more recommended sources on the subject? Would be so greatful for any suggestions! :)
Brave video, congrats Edit: More art means more content and more profit, crowdfunding basically is a more tame form of capitalism.
I decided NOT to do patreon even though I like to live stream myself painting, etc. Because I couldn't think of "gifts" that were appropriate to what kind of art I do.
I think artists have always had to figure out where in the spectrum of commercial viability they wish to engage in.
Further, there is the idea that art SHOULD critique its own culture - but historically speaking, it has been used as propaganda more often then not. eg: well known artists of colour are usually critiquing it's own culture but used by western art movement to further the idea that west is best. -- Use of abstract expressionism by CIA to further cultural imperialism - effectively nearly killing all European representational painting.
I think for me, I will be looking for exposure (galleries, prizes, etc) so to find handful of collectors that really believe in what I am about and what I am doing.. Otherwise, I will have to start painting small pretty paintings that I know are marketable.
In Australia because there are so many competitions and not enough buyers, market, and galleries - many artists are painting for the judges. Though I must engage somewhat - I refuse to do this.
I think it is important to note that making money is how we live. but art is why we live. so it is necessary for the artist to make money in some way before he can produce art.
I feel like this is an exceptionally narrow view of art. Are Renaissance paintings made with the financial backing of patrons no longer art because capitalistic systems supported their production? Does a Michelangelo portrait of the Medici family, for instance, become "content"? It has a marketable goal; the goal of glorifying the patrons that paid for it. But we don't view that as "content". Video games have the broad marketable goal of "being fun to play", but more and more we're accepting those as art. Even small, subversive films have "marketable goals", it's just a much more niche market. This division between content and art feels...artificial.
Following up on my last comment, have you considered setting a maximum earnings level for yourself? What do you think would be a fair return on your labour? Would you perhaps consider paying forward any additional earnings you make beyond that fair return to support other artists/content providers?
Most of the big TH-cam videos (e.g. Smosh) make content art. Yes it's content for a profit but the profitability of these videos doesn't change that an art goes into making them as successful TH-cam videos (the skill of cat videos is questionable but they do appeal a particular rhetoric that is what I mean by an art), so no crowdfunding isn't ruining art but it may reshape a subcategory of art (I say subcategory because other artforms are tangential but I'm referring specifically to TH-cam videos as art in this case).
Oases is a concept that is thrown around by some anarchist-leaning thinkers - islands of activity which shield their interior from the imperatives inherent in capitalism. These can be community activities, sharing networks, coops etc.
So instead of thinking of revolution in the classical sense we may think of the idea that at some point capitalism will gradually change into something else, where it will be difficult to classify as capitalism any more - i.e. an economy where everyone has some share in the means of production. Paul Mason is pushing this view very enthusiastically.
In fact it is very difficult to maintain concentrated ownership of the means of production in a knowledge & service economy. The only way it can be done is by selling workers the right to work - i.e. exercise their skills; which in an environment where this practice is less tied on material objects it can be very difficult and it is always very inefficient.
The question then becomes are these oases false illusions which prevent genuine change, or are they the seeds of whatever may come next.
My mother is a visual artist, reasonably well regarded within our country. Her gallery takes 40% of her sales plus a further 5% for storage costs- if this fails to cover the cost of the rental, this will be increased. My point is this- have artists ever truly been free from the pressure to crowd please, and to therefore sell? I'm no expert but for the most part artists have lived in poverty except for those who live off inheritance. While systems like patreon do encourage content rather than art- is that really a novelty?
It's so painful to feel forced into crowdfunding to afford vital spine surgery, already feeling tortured and drained by my own body while unregulated capitalist systems did the same to my financial independence, and it hurts even more knowing that it probably won't be the last time despite applying for and still awaiting responses from social healthcare programs for three years straight.
It's telling that no entities with such power over the ill and disabled won't directly comment on the injustices of their profiting off of our unprotected right to *live.*
Very good points!
I'd like to suggest, in a Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism, one would not have to worry of financial constraints and focus a large portion of time to "art". Maybe see better/faster advancement in many fields?
The World May Never Know, Who-Whooooo
It's a catch 22. I want to end the need for crowd funding to exist, but while we've got this shitty economic system, I want to help people make stuff I believe people should see, even if I don't fully agree with it. In trying to help these people, I'm perpetuating the very system I detest.
"if you want to help me give away FREE education... give me money" I don't want to be rude but do you see the contradiction?
A more serious concern: don't you think that trying to be as objective as possible and showing both sides of the argument is better for education?( this question isn't related to this video)
Thanks!
It's not a contradiction - I don't charge people to watch my videos, it's all done on donations.
That's true. But if people don't give money you won't be doing the videos. So, it is not completly "free". So, money can corrupt your content and the way you educate through the videos. All this is hypothetical, I like your content.
Amazing video :) I love philosophy concerning contemporary I really liked the video (your face looked a bit oranger [trumpy] than usual) amazing videos though!!!
It's a nice idea to think that artists can just live off of their passion and desire to create, but they do actually have to survive. Capitalism doesn't lend itself very well to art, so I see crowdfunding as a reaction to this. Yes, it does profit from the unjust system in which we live, but I think the need for it highlights these issues.
As an artist, I would define art as "anything which is intentionally designed", so I don't buy the argument that art and content are different.
Patreon only took 5 percent? That's a pretty good deal. I assume it's much higher today.