Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Jan 2011 15:32 UTC
Multimedia, AV Francis Ford Coppola is one of the most prestigious and critically acclaimed directors in cinematographic history. He directed, among others, the Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now, and has won so many awards it's hard to keep track. In an interview with 99%, he touched on the subject of art and making money, and his musings are fascinating, and yet another indication that the times are changing in the content industry. "Who says artists have to make money?" Coppola wonders.
E-mail Print r 15   · Read More · 152 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 460344
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Who says researchers need to 'make money'
by Yamin on Mon 31st Jan 2011 17:26 UTC
Yamin
Member since:
2006-01-10

I'm not sure when it happened exactly. But somewhere along the lines, society decided that every job has to be monetized as a regular job.

People like Thomas Edison worked regular jobs (clerk...) and then pursued their hobby in their spare time. If they could become great in their hobby, then great. If not... well who cares. No one should pay you for your hobby or interests.

The same is true of artists. Yet today, we have people who want 'arts' funding and trying to make art a regular job.

Why should society pay for your hobby? I'd generally argue most of these fields should be left as hobbies... including technology and research and yes... the arts. People seem naturally curious in them to want to invent and play. Then if they do something useful (become a great artist, invent something amazing...) and can sell it/themselves, or rise in their community (artist group, scientific journal...), all the better.

Now of course, I wouldn't argue this position is practical in isolation. It used to be practical... today not so much. Property taxes, other taxes, inflation, regulations... have made saving and living cheap difficult and regulations means certain fields are hard to explore without being a part of an institution.

But it's another way of doing things for sure. l

Reply Score: 3

Cymro Member since:
2005-07-07

Do you realise that most artists are already working to support their hobby?

That any money is usually a little bit on the side as reward for putting in hours on evenings and weekends?

Hardly anyone is making it rich. Some are lucky enough to go professional and you want to take that away because you have some high-horse mentality about what a proper job is.

Finally artists risk getting a fair slice of the profits that used to shovelled up by bone-idle wide-boys preserving the status quo, and at the same time the freetards want to take any remaining pittance away from them.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Yamin Member since:
2006-01-10

"Do you realise that most artists are already working to support their hobby? "

That is how it should be. Depends on where you live I guess. I'm in Canada... and we never hear the end of artists wanting government funding.


"Some are lucky enough to go professional and you want to take that away because you have some high-horse mentality about what a proper job is. "

Where do I say that? If they can become professional, and make money off it... more power to them. Just don't expect society to bend over backwards (via direct funding of arts, or restrictive management of the internet).

Any professional musician can make a good living doing live shows. Movies themselves are an outing and movie stars/producers can make a good living...

Reply Parent Score: 3

Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

Yet today, we have people who want 'arts' funding and trying to make art a regular job.


I don't think this thread is based on whether people should get government funding for their hobbies, but whether your works should have some protection of copyright.

Edited 2011-01-31 18:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Yamin Member since:
2006-01-10

It's part of the same package.

It's weather or not all 'work' needs to be monetized.

How it's 'monetized' is immaterial to the desire for it to be monetized.

I read the interview... and Coppola is more along the lines of not monetizing everything.

"I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script. "

"“Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money.” Because there are ways around it."

I don't think anyone is saying artists shouldn't make money... but neither should you focus on monetizing every aspect of your work.

He makes the point that before recorded music, artists would have to travel and people would pay to see them. This is still largely the case today. Whether or not an artist is paid for every song sold, every time it is heard... is immaterial to the reality that a successful artist can make a living doing live shows.

He more or less tosses out an idea. That's what I'm doing.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have copyright or anything... It's obviously a question of what kind of copyright, what kind of enforcement... but too often the discussion revolved around monetizing all work.

And today... the restrictions needed to 'monetize' all work are far too intrusive in terms of government that it should cause us to reevaluate.

As I said in another post... it's a little impractical today as we don't live in times of cheap existence... but maybe we should be looking at thing differently.

Reply Parent Score: 2