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). 3 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Interesting topic, and there is much to say about this. Much to discuss. But I will focus on your "the "artists passing a crumpled $5 bill back and forth amongst ourselves" problem."
This has been a thorn in my sight for a while. It is what I saw on every platform I have published my poetry on that also promised 'earnings'. From Medium, to Substack and also on Twitter shilling links.
But it was always artists passing that same $5 bill around. Everywhere. And a small group of people taking the large part of the pot, because they were very focused and intent on creating for the sake of getting the biggest share of the pot.
It is why I created the @trpplffct poetry fund. A private initiative, collecting tips and gifts from supporters and distributing them to onchain poets via micro grants, collecting work, creating a zine, creative challenges and now tipping-through-liking as well. It's a small drop and it certainly is not enough for my poet friends to earn a living wage, but it helps a tiny bit and at least gives the feeling things being possible. The basic idea is to get money from the outside into the system.
My biggest challenge: I still find it hard to ask for funding. Both in terms of finding where to ask as in terms of being too shy to ask. Too modest to speak about it. Too demure to shout it from every single rooftop.
And that is the second big challenge we have as artists/creators: we look down on the marketing part. We believe our creations deserve to be as handsomely rewarded and appreciated as Monet's work. But we don't want to do the work. I like @bertwurst.eth as a great example to study. A lot of people think that account is popular just because it's a cute dog. But if you follow it and read between the lines, you see how amazingly professional the team behind is is working to make it so successful. Just sharing dog pics, or just creating art is not enough. 1 reply
1 recast
3 reactions
