I'm not sure I'm making any sense here

[alexseanchai]

So I am a firm believer in the idea that artists and crafters (ze says as though there's a difference) should be paid for their work. Somebody wants to give something away for free or sell it for cost of materials, awesome, more power to 'em, but the default assumption should be that this project took someone's time and time is valuable.

Except I just got Betsy Greer's essay collection Craftivism, and one of the essays includes the line "However, marketing one's self and selling one's work as a name is still a capitalist tool that's hard to avoid."

Capitalism = colonialism = unsustainability. Or capitalism = colonialism + unsustainability, I'm not sure, but the three words are definitely inextricably linked. (Thank you, Ecofeminism class.) I'd much rather be a socialist. And not in the Fox News sense of the term, either, because Obama's a capitalist no matter how anyone but Fox cares to slice it. But I have to live in a capitalist society, and I still like the idea of making money off my word art and jewelry art and yarn art. But. Capitalism.

I need to go think about this.

Comments

[esmenet]

The line I draw is that physical things I make are potentially for selling (knit shawls, handwritten things, in-person violin recitals, hard copies of anything) while digital things not-for-hire (so, fanfic and original fic) are for free. Of course, as of now I am not selling anything at all, soooo...

[alexseanchai]

Hm. Ponder ponder. Thanks for the input.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

You can fuck up the paradigm just by refusing to acknowledge it. Deal with the parts that are inescapable, but scramble the boundaries and ideologies. One may sell one's work without practicing capitalism, if one attaches different principles to the process. And those different principles change the results, sometimes massively.

Take crowdfunding. It's an exchange of energy and ideas, part of which is represented in money. It fosters a mutually beneficial connection rather than a parasitic one. People can influence what gets produced, allowing wider representation and innovation. Crowdfunders often give away free samples, which encourages new people to give them a try, thereby attracting more potential donors.

Re: Thoughts

[alexseanchai]

Thing to ponder, thanks!

[silveradept]

We would all rather be socialists, bt that the greed of a few ruins it for everyone else. That said, the model that appears to be emerging these days is much like one the software industry went throuh - shareware. We put a carefully curated selection of material out there for free so as to gain recognition and for people to evaluate whether or not they wish to support us more. Then, having seen the possible work possible, we ask people to fund and support us so that we can make more things they will like. Sufficient amounts of people backing you makes a living. Which is sort of the issue, as all the people who want to back others are often in need of backing themselves, and those who could back many millions are only interested in what they can gain for themselves.

[alexseanchai]

Nod. Ponder. Thanks.