0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Great questions from @chriscocreated.
My reading of what @trigs.eth wrote ("gift-giving is the necessary precursor to market activity when it comes to creative content") is that if we begin with investment or speculative dynamics when funding creative work, this decision then closes off the paths for a potential increase in GIFT value...
...and that increase in gift value is THE big unlock we need if we really want to sustainably support creative work over time.
If we don't *begin* with direct gift-giving to the artists, we'll always end up with business as usual: markets will continue on with extracting most of the value generated by their gifts and turning it into private profit. Just as they do right now.
When trying to develop social norms of gifting amongst artists, for example, we quickly run into the structural problem @abundance recently mentioned: "creators benefit the community (or network) but are expected to be rewarded by members of the community."
I call this the "artists passing a crumpled $5 bill back and forth amongst ourselves" problem.
If we want that increase in gift value to do its thing, then most of the early gifts to fund creative work will probably need to come from entities *outside* artist circles (e.g., philanthropy).
In this context I think it's a good idea to consider the many layers of challenges (social, psychological, economic, cultural) involved in getting creative work funded. These are thorny and deeply rooted problems. Gift-giving is an oft-overlooked key, but there's more to the story.
Tom Beck's latest piece "Why Artists Can't Get Paid" is my go-to for thinking through the true depth of this problem space; it will be frequently quoted in this channel.
(See the comments for further reading). 2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
