>I'm not sure about this - why shouldn't artists be paid for what they work
>at? I'm not thinking of the disproportionate amounts some are able to
>generate but , in this context, I always think of my husband (now ex) who
>is/was a musician. Over the years he performed in benefits for a variety of
>causes (he's never been in the sort of band that made a lot of money).
>Whilst he was happy to play for nothing, I couldn't help noticing that only
>the musicians gave their services for free - sound crew, lighting, ticket
>sellers etc were all paid. Is the artist's labour to be free because she/he
>enjoys (not the most appropriate word but it'll do) what he/she is doing?
>Which begs a number of questions.
Indeed -
I have to say here that in art forms where others get paid, I want to be
paid also. I write libretti, and expect to get paid for my work; but the
person who made the most money out of the last opera I did was the lead
singer. And he made _a lot_.
I certainly don't wish to suggest that artists should not be paid! I
write full-time, and am married to a full-time writer, and we have three
children, which is a recipe which often makes our bank very unhappy. I
tend to have to be very pragmatic about finding ways to live... but I
still have trouble selling my books of poems, as opposed to giving them
away; the question as it pertains to poetry is especially piquant, since
in the normal course of things, there is no way any poet can make a
decent living from his or her work. Hence Auden's statement that poets
have no idea of money, because they can spend six months writing a poem
which they can sell for five pounds, and an afternoon writing an article
for which they'll be paid 100.
There is an uneasy nexus of values colliding in the middle of these
questions. If I valued my work according to how it is valued in the
economy, I would not do it. And so I tend to give away my books.
Best
Alison
|