Don't Quit Your Day Job: Creativity Is About Passion, Not Paychecks
from the doing-it-because-you-want-to,-not-because-you-have-to dept
There are many who argue, despite historical and ongoing evidence to the contrary, that creativity will die out if creators cannot be guaranteed some sort of livable wage. It's almost as if any creator who creates as a hobby or potential second job either a) is being shortchanged by disruption, piracy, etc., or b) shouldn't be taken seriously because they haven't abandoned their day job.It's an odd assertion. Most groundbreaking creative efforts were conceived and carried out while the creators worked in a variety of other non-creative jobs. It was only after these breakthroughs that these artists went on to live solely on the earnings of their creative works. Somehow, we're now expected to believe that without piracy and other disruptions, creators would be making better, livable wages, possibly right out of the gate.
That whole thought process ignores the reality. Not having a paycheck tied to your creative endeavors means being able to fail more often and experiment more freely, without having to worry about hurting your current source of income. Case in point: three developers who solved a problem most companies didn't know they had, all without having to "give up the day job."
For the past two years, Brandon Medenwald, Justin Kalvoda, and Bill Burgess have held down full-time jobs while also launching their company, Simply Made Apps.On it's face, it seems terribly simple: build something better. And yet, no one had really tackled it before. So they took a weekend off to knock out the framework early last year and since then have been refining it based on customer feedback.
Their only product is an app called Simple In/Out, which solves a problem that drove Brandon crazy. He explains, “In my fulltime job as a web programmer, we had an old magnetic in/out board like they use in sales offices to keep track of who is in the office and who isn’t. Five or six years ago, they transitioned to a Web-based version.
“I was constantly frustrated with it, because some of the roughly 40 people in our firm wouldn’t use it. The board became extremely out of date. For years, I was joking that I could write a better piece of software in a weekend, but then over beers in a bar with two friends, it dawned on me we could solve this problem by using the GPS chips in cell phones.”
For the first four months, the app was free. Last September, they introduced pricing that was based on the number of people being tracked on the company’s board. Prices start at $5 per month for 4 to 10 users, and gradually step up to $160 a month for 250 to 1,000 users.Creativity very often springs from those tied to day jobs. These three don't sound even remotely "tied." It's not about sustaining yourself from a nights-and-weekend project. It's about being passionate about what you do with your nights and weekends. These days, anyone with a spark of creativity has hundreds of free-to-cheap tools at their disposal. The barriers to entry have been demolished, whether it's music, movies or software. It's not money that drives these creators: it's passion. And if you ignore that fact, and cling to past business models, you're going to find yourself trailing the pack very quickly.
Although the trio are far better programmers than they are marketers, today they have over 1,600 registered companies. More importantly, they have something they love so much that they occasionally use their vacations to devote extra time to their “nights and weekends” startup.
None of them hate their real jobs. None are eager to quit. They come across as smart, patient people who want to solve interesting problems that other companies aren’t solving.
“In a big corporation,” says Brandon, “I’d be fearful of the little people out there doing something that they are passionate about, because, passion trumps money.” He and his partners love what they do, and feel fortunate to be able to solve interesting problems.The three were able to get this off the ground using spare time and around $100 each, which covered "licenses, a Web domain, a 'doing business as' name, etc." From $300 and a few nights and weekends to 1,600 paid users, all without having to "quit the day job."
Even though the company is turning a modest profit, he says, “Because we love what we do, we don’t have to be concerned about turning a profit, which means we are extremely dangerous people when it comes to our dedication to improving services
Those arguing that creativity is tied to a steady paycheck are relics looking back fondly at the days of gatekeeping, when competition was low because the barriers were too high. It has nothing to do with wanting future artists to be properly "protected" against disruption and everything to do with keeping more people out. That sounds more than a little like fear.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: creativity
Companies: simply made apps
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I am sorry Tim, but this is a crock of shit. You are setting up a strawman and knocking it down, and trying to act like you are teaching us something new and exciting. Drop the old "on the internet" part, and this is old, old hat stuff.
History is full of inventors that work in their garages on the weekends, at night, whatever, working on their dream idea. It's not new, it's not original. Heck, how do you think the original Apple computer came around?
Nobody claims that a "paycheck job" is the only way to creativity. Where do you get that from, except perhaps something in the Techdirt koolaid, I guess.
Again, I have to ask: Why do angry? Did you lose your job or something? Did you find out (based on another thread) that Mike doesn't pay anyone? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is demonstrably false. Many regular dissenters here have made precisely that claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please, [ citation needed ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/19171919887/did-you-know-that-professional-writi ng-is-dying-only-taxing-public-to-pay-writers-can-save-it.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But since you brought up piracy - why is it that every "copyright holder" who comes here to complain finds it worth their time to call us pirates and freeloaders, when we have no idea who they are? After all, you copyright maximalists insist that all we ever download is the Top 20 stuff - why would we be allegedly downloading anything else, right? Why would Phil - friend of hurricane head who claims to have a recording studio - find coming here to rant a far better use of his time than, you know, using said recording studio? Care to answer that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, but the first-time director is always supported by an experienced producer, directorial team, cinematographer, production designer, editor, mixer, actors, etc. You will simply never get a viable feature film out of a group of 100% amateurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How about Clerks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Paranormal Activities" was also largely an amateur production. But the studio acquiring it spent many hundred thousands of dollars fixing it in post- money that far exceeded the shooting budget. Same with "Blair Witch".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ed Burns, successful Hollywood filmmaker made his last film... for $9,000.
The idea that films have to cost so much is clearly erroneous. As is the idea that you can't make back your investment. Once again, thanks to the TECH industry (the one you wish to bury), we get amazing new ways of MAKING video content for less and for monetizing it.
Just because you live in a world of buggy whips, don't blame us for telling you that cars are available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh god, there you go again, ignoring the "why and how" and just pointing at the end result.
You realize of course that most of the technology used today to make low budget films was pioneered and paid for by incredibly expensive movies? From Industrial Light and Magic to the crew that did Avatar, new and expensive technology has been used to make amazing movies, and over time has trickled down to the masses.
The point is that you forget that without the mega movies to fund and pay for these technology advances, your $9000 movie wouldn't happen - and that's everything down to NLE and high quality, lower cost cameras as well.
"Just because you live in a world of buggy whips, don't blame us for telling you that cars are available."
As soon as you say "buggy whip" it's like a code word for "I am full of shit", because it's the same old tired line you always drag out. As long as you keep forgetting who paid for your technology, you can ignore the effects of killing off big money movies.
Ignorance is bliss, and in this regard, you are truly a happy man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry are you trying to say the film industry are the only people that use lighting, sound, cameras, etc? Fail.
Anyway the technology you speak of is not made specifically for the Movie industry. Most of the core tech actually comes from Universities and is taken and productionised by large tech companies. The movie studios are only an end user.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about: Vertigo, Breathless, Citizen Kane, The Godfather I & II, Apocalypse Now, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mulholland Drive, The Searchers, Breathless or Singing In The Rain. Those films are widely regarded as some of the greatest ever made. Which one of those could have been made for $9000?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You just have to work harder and to a budget which hollywood don't seem to be able to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You just have to work harder and to a budget which hollywood don't seem to be able to do.
You obviously know nothing about the motion picture industry. Please explain how "working harder" overcomes a lack of money to purchase or rent or hire the necessary creative inputs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if the budget is for getting everyone to work on the movie and getting them a place to stay and something to eat and drink, and then somehow they make a good-quality movie, then it is possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's really not my point. The films I cited are widely acclaimed as being the best in the genre. None of those could have been made by the artists interpreting his vision for $9000. I don't know of any films made on a shoestring that are considered to be of the same creative significance as the ones I mentioned. The creative inputs to a motion picture are far different and more costly than the tubes of paint and canvas used by a painter, the computer and word processing software used by the writer or the instruments and recording device used by the musician. $9000 would be an enormous sum for any one of the universe of those kinds of artists, and would likely allow them to fully realize any creative vision they might have. But that same $9000 would be incredibly limiting for the universe of filmmakers trying to realize their creative vision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but he still produced Clerks without having major support, and it was pretty damn good too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is one of those beautiful troll posts that I'm already riling to take down with even before I realized there's the good old "cheap ... entitled to free" punching bag buried at the bottom. What a treat on a sleepy Friday night.
You had me at "quality artists are professionals." Hahahahahahahahaha
How can you know so little about art and culture?
Artists are not professionals. That's like saying bacon comes from cows.
Name one type of culture in the West for which more funding means more quality and creativity.
hahahahahhahaha. Holy crap. Seriously, thank you. Nobody paid you to write this shit and yet it's the funniest I've read all week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...Prometheus...wow...how many local public assistance programs would that disappointment have funded?
/sad panda opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Prometheus was one giant ball of loose ends and illogical, unlikely premises.
By the way, I'm commissioning an interstellar trip that will cost you over two years of your life in stasis, but I don't want to tell you more than that. Yes or no, do you want the job? Don't worry, you'll find all about it once you get there and it'll be too late to back out of my batshit crazy expedition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, two completely fabricated claims with absolutely zero evidence to back them up. You work for the MPAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whether it is music, painting, or whatever else, technology has advanced to the point that an artist no longer needs a rich patron or a large corporation with a bunch of money backing it in order to produce quality work. that's why those who've exploited artists in the past for cash are scrambling around pushing for more and more laws. It's not to protect the artist from the pirates, it's to keep the pirates from being able to purchase, at a reasonable cost, directly from the artist and thereby eliminate the leaches in the middle the pirates are trying to avoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. Why don't you simply consume the entertainment you enjoy the most? Why limit yourself? Aren't you rewarding something less than excellence?
2. How would you propose to fund a feature length motion picture without resources beyond the means of most would-be filmmakers? Assume that it should compete (artistically) with other motion pictures that are well regarded by critics and fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A 'haven't quit my day job' Independent Designer
I try to be a responsible adult. I keep my day job because I need to keep a roof over my head & food on the table. I put my passions & creativity on-hold while I earn a steady income. Until I can breakthrough and become 'noticed', my creativity is stifled for 2/3 of every day.
What I'd like to say in response to this article, is that maybe there is something not being noticed.... People with 'Creative Passions' have shifted focus away from allowing the passion to dictate their careers because our current times are not as forgiving/supportive as in the past. Many of us spend more time yearning to express our 'Creative Passions' than we can devote to actually doing it. The overall effect is depressing. One can question if this these observations help to explain why this shift in the historical pattern is permanent and/or destructive to future creativity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Ives, Boulez, Bartok, Varese, Messiaen, Nancarrow, Babbitt, Perle, Barraque...in fact, a huge percentage of the 20th century's most brilliant musical minds would have starved without a day job.
Schoenberg taught composition, Webern made arrangements for night club bands, Ives sold insurance, Boulez worked as a conductor and so on. Their jobs were often related to music, but if they had depended on sales of sheet music or royalties from record sales they would have starved. Some of them came close to doing so anyway.
This is all quite true, but few here really seem to grasp the implications of it.
While people around here glory in the fact that the web makes it so easy to Connect With Fans, they ignore the fact that the whole concept of 'fans' in relation to music and literature is a product of the music industry and mass market publishing.
The really radical and transformative part about the web and free creative technology isn't that it allows artists to connect with fans. That's the old way of thinking. The radical part is that the web and free creative technology allow artists and thinkers of every sort to develop and distribute their ideas without having to pander to a commercially significant body of 'fans' at all.
I mean it's great that people can now sell out on their own, without a record company executive making them do it, and can compete in the entertainment marketplace with Taylor Swift and Green Day and all...but it seems at least as important that now creative people no longer have to sell out at all, and that they can do their thing exactly as they see fit without having to pander or wear stupid costumes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But to make money as an artist using the web, you've still got to do the same thing you always did, which is convince people to part with their money. The fact that the web and its distribution capabilities also makes it very easy to do that is a happy coincidence. To decry anyone who wants to make money as an artist as "selling out" and fans as "old-fashioned" is to insult them in the former case and to be naive in the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Kinda, yeah. I don't think they are wrong to do so, but as a musician interested in music rather than an entertainer interested in entertainment, I generally find such art to be kind of boring.
There are exceptions, of course...there always are, but what you aren't getting is that really radical art that expands its form and defines its future possibilities rarely has enough fans to make any serious money when it is made.
I don't think that 'fans' are old fashioned. But thinking of all cultural activity as fan-dependent is very definitely a relic of the mass market industrial past.
I'm not naive, I just have different priorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I wouldn't trade it for the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe one day I'll self publish in a format that I can sell infinitely reproducible goods with little to no overhead so it's pure profit, and the money would be nice even though I'm not near starving and doing well in my day job. If I do publish and sell my work, it'll be more for the accomplishment and the experience than the money.
I have a college friend who is a writer within a particular sub-genre who has gotten her first work published and has a second one coming. She loves the experience and makes enough to keep writing, but she mostly relies on her husband's income and her side gigs as a speaker.
All the creative people I know are not in it for the money and most of them do give away a substantial amount of their work for free because obscurity is worse than piracy for an artist. If nobody wants to pirate your work because they've never heard of you, they're also not going to buy your work because they've never heard of it. They also all have day jobs that are often related to their artistic passions (like video production while their art is making movies, speaking while their art is writing, programming while their art is game programming), but they don't make their living directly from their art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, but I'm not going to chase after pirates either, and I'm certainly not going to charge $60 for the thing. We're still discussing monetization, but whatever it is going to be, it will respect that the market today isn't the one of a decade ago.
Developers can get paid without being draconian morons. Indie developers can't ignore reality like big publishers try to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 14th, 2012 @ 9:47pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 14th, 2012 @ 9:47pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 14th, 2012 @ 9:47pm
"Tim, the typical low budget motion picture..."
Did you miss the "Tim" part?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do have a valid point underneath the wall of text.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It was historically relevant to me, so I took part. The actors basically got a credit, and that's it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huge Paychecks encourage Creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huge Paychecks encourage Creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huge Paychecks encourage Creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds great, but...
How long til it's patent trolled out of existence? :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want to add one more point
“What should other artists do? Well, I’m not really bothered. The sad truth is that almost every artist who tries to earn money will fail. This has nothing to do with the internet, of course. Consider the remarkable statement from Alanis Morissette’s attorney at the Future of Music Conference: 97% of the artists signed to a major label before Napster earned $600 or less a year from it. And these were the lucky lotto winners, the tiny fraction of 1% who made it to a record deal. Almost every artist who sets out to earn a living from art won’t get there (for me, it took 19 years before I could afford to quit my day job), whether or not they give away their work, sign to a label, or stick it through every letterbox in Zone 1.”
- Cory Doctorow
http://sharingisliberty.wordpress.com/tag/cory-doctorow/
Also consider,
Jim C Hines’s 2010 survey of novelists: "The average time an author spent writing BEFORE a sale is 11 years!"
http://sharingisliberty.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/the-average-time-an-author-spent-writing-b efore-a-sale-is-11-years/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money is completely irrelevant because people will realize that their money allows them to experience your greatness. money is nothing but stored time (either yours or someone elses). although people want to spend their money, they make judgement calls on how much of it they want to spend which may not be the same as the sticker price.
but when you can connect the new digital dots, sticker scrutiny becomes less of an issue. and the point is that connecting those dots takes time and dedication so the more time you spend working on it, the more fully realized it becomes. you may eat top ramen and cereal for years but when you have the thing or the idea, i believe that the understanding of this space that comes with it will create intimate knowledge of a new frontier which you can use to create more and more digitally native ideas, keeping you waaay ahead of the idea of pirating.
this new world is so much more surreal and vast than anything you can imagine while having to hold down a job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some of the greatest works of the twentieth century were written by people who held down day jobs. And some of the most wretched and formulaic dreck was written by professionals.
Charles Ives single-handedly anticipated most of the revolutionary compositional devices of twentieth century music. He did this years before better-known Europeans 'invented' these techniques, all while selling insurance for a living.
One of the standard works of European history: Pirenne's History of Europe, was written while he was a prisoner of war, without access to more than a handful of books.
Primo Levi, who was not only a great writer but a first class chemist, wrote his early works while working in a paint factory, after nearly dying in Auschwitz.
Franz Kafka wrote his greatest works while working as an insurance agent in war-torn Europe.
The world, to any truly creative mind, is 'much more surreal and vast than anything you can imagine'....period. If you really can't conceive how these minds can create without earning a paycheck doing so, that is a failure of your imagination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It has been called "one of the most important poems of the 20th century."
That's pretty impressive while working at a bank during the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And how many books and movies have we seen about artists and writers who are just starving artists struggling with their creativity and then they suddenly get inspiration from places they hadn't thought to look, like the jobs they have to take to survive.
George Orwell's Keep the Aspidistra Flying addresses the artist and the day job dilemma (also the movie they made from it called A Merry War).
Charles Bukowski's Post Office was about his experience in the crappy job of being a substitute mail carrier.
Hemingway wouldn't have had his experiences in the Spanish Civil War that inspired his novels if he hadn't been there as a journalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The histories of twentieth century music and literature are filled with people who made great art while not earning a living at it, because they chose to break new ground instead of pandering to people's desire to consume cultural comfort food.
And pessimists ignore this because all they really want to do is serve cultural comfort food and become wealthy while doing so.
But of course, admitting this rather ugly fact would be a blow to their egos, so they pretend they don't see these things.
Kind of sad really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We respond to these points every time with the very simple note:
It's not any different today on the internet than it was 30 years ago with a vanity press, or 50 years ago with pulp fiction magazines, or any other methodology.
Adding "on the internet" doesn't make it magical or new.
"And pessimists ignore this because all they really want to do is serve cultural comfort food and become wealthy while doing so."
No, the realists want to be able to obtain both the comfort food and the cutting edge new artist stuff as well. We don't see that we need to trade one for the other. We don't buy into the bullshit that suggests you have to systematically kill big content so that small content can flourish. It's been there all along.
If you truly have a better system, a better way, a better business model, or (even) better content then away you go. You should be ruling the world soon.
"admitting this rather ugly fact would be a blow to their egos"
The only ego I see here is yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not any different today on the internet than it was 30 years ago with a vanity press, or 50 years ago with pulp fiction magazines, or any other methodology."
Actually it is quite different. No vanity press can compare with the instant, worldwide, free distribution of the internet. And pulp magazines were just a different form of mass market commercial publishing.
"Adding "on the internet" doesn't make it magical or new. "
See above concerning instant worldwide free distribution.
"No, the realists want to be able to obtain both the comfort food and the cutting edge new artist stuff as well."
Oh bullshit. 'Cutting edge new artist stuff' as you call it existed long before mass market publishing and will continue to exist long after mass market publishing has become a historical footnote. Comfort food is what makes money and you know full well that money is all you care about.
"We don't see that we need to trade one for the other."
Well, the one can survive and flourish quite well on the internet, while the other is having trouble. It seems that the trade has already been made without your consent.
"We don't buy into the bullshit that suggests you have to systematically kill big content so that small content can flourish. It's been there all along."
Here I agree with you. You don't have to kill 'big content', and I don't advocate killing it. I simply don't care if it dies.
Don't mistake my indifference for malice.
"If you truly have a better system, a better way, a better business model, or (even) better content then away you go. You should be ruling the world soon."
I don't have a better business model. I don't give a shit about business models. That is Mr. Masnick's province. I care about culture, and the parts of it that I know well are quite definitely doing better now than they were before the internet came along.
"The only ego I see here is yours."
That doesn't surprise me at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point isn't "how much", it's that things are really the same. The technology is different, whatever... but there is always been a infrastructure for indie writers, from pulp fiction to vanity presses and so on. What's the big deal?
"Oh bullshit. 'Cutting edge new artist stuff' as you call it existed long before mass market publishing and will continue to exist long after mass market publishing has become a historical footnote. Comfort food is what makes money and you know full well that money is all you care about. "
What the fuck? I don't care about money, where do you get that? I care about artist being able to be artists, that's all. The point (that you clearly missed) is that cutting edge new art stuff is always been around, and unlike what the original post tries to push, it's not sometihng new because of the internet. Are you confused? One minute you are saying the internet is all that, and then the next you are saying the new artist stuff has always been around. Which one would you like to go with?
"Don't mistake my indifference for malice."
no, your indifference is arrogance. That's different.
"I don't have a better business model. I don't give a shit about business models. That is Mr. Masnick's province. I care about culture, and the parts of it that I know well are quite definitely doing better now than they were before the internet came along. "
First of all, Mr Masnick doesn't post here. Mike does. His father does. He's only Mr Masnick to you if you are a child.
Second, if you care about culture, you in the end will also care about business models, because business models are what make much of the content you get possible at all. You cannot extract one from the other. The ability to turn a hit into a way to pay the artist, so they can keep being an artist is really key to getting the most culture possible.
Cause and effect... study it.
"That doesn't surprise me at all."
I doubt anything does. It's a sign of being ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The infrastructure is fundamentally different. That's the big deal. If you don't see why it's a big deal I doubt that I can explain it to you, but the main difference is that writers don't need a mass market audience to publish. You obviously seem to think that mass market publishing is the entire universe.
"What the fuck? I don't care about money, where do you get that? I care about artist being able to be artists, that's all. The point (that you clearly missed) is that cutting edge new art stuff is always been around, and unlike what the original post tries to push, it's not sometihng new because of the internet. Are you confused? One minute you are saying the internet is all that, and then the next you are saying the new artist stuff has always been around. Which one would you like to go with?"
The existence of the art isn't new. The being able to distribute it part is new. No, I am not confused.
"First of all, Mr Masnick doesn't post here. Mike does. His father does. He's only Mr Masnick to you if you are a child."
Where do you get this shit? 'Mike' isn't my friend and we aren't on a first name basis. The fact that everyone else here calls him that doesn't oblige me to do so. Why you should confuse basic politeness with...whatever you have it confused it with is beyond me. But if you want me to call you 'Mr' to balance it out I can.
"Second, if you care about culture, you in the end will also care about business models, because business models are what make much of the content you get possible at all. You cannot extract one from the other. The ability to turn a hit into a way to pay the artist, so they can keep being an artist is really key to getting the most culture possible.
Cause and effect... study it."
Cheeky! But again, you are confusing 'mass market culture' with 'culture'.
All kinds of books and music have been written for very little if any money. A lot of the music has actually lost money in performance. I gave 10 to 12 names upthread, but really, the whole history of 20th century avant-garde music is one long refutation of what you just said. If you don't believe me and are looking for an introductory text, Paul Griffith's 'Modern Music' is a good one.
"I doubt anything does."
Actually, lots of things surprise me. The world is filled with wonders. You just aren't one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are still off missing the point: All through our history, there have been people working "inside" the system, and those working outside of it. The line is blurred. The actual ability to publish doesn't have any connection to the quality of the work.
" Why you should confuse basic politeness with...whatever you have it confused it with is beyond me."
Pointless formality, a sign of arrogance and high mindedness. Are you better than the rest of us, or do you just think you are?
"Cheeky! But again, you are confusing 'mass market culture' with 'culture'."
No, actually you appear to be putting a snobbish spin on culture, assuming what you like is good and what the masses like is crap. All culture is culture. You are daft to consider otherwise. More snobbish, "better than you" thinking.
"All kinds of books and music have been written for very little if any money."
Nobody has said they weren't. That's the strawman, and the entire point. It's a bullshit way to try to talk down to people who oppose the destruction of culture in the name of culture.
" The world is filled with wonders. You just aren't one of them."
... and the final slam, the pissing down from on high. You really are full of yourself, aren't you? What's it like to be a superior being?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If someone (whether amateur or pro) is creating something because of a calculation of how to craft it to make the most money, it probably won't be very good.
It seems that the real innovation would come from creators who are earning a living in their craft and have the time, financial security and higher degree of expertise (derived from their higher level of practice of the craft) than a guy who has to work a second job to support his passion.
In technical fields maybe so. In art, it will come from people creative enough to innovate. You can't stop those people from creating, you can only help them find an audience, or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In technical fields maybe so. In art, it will come from people creative enough to innovate. You can't stop those people from creating, you can only help them find an audience, or not.
I don't think that's right. If you are making a living as a writer, you will have more opportunity and be able to gain more depth of experience actually writing than if you are tending bar 40-50 hours per week. I'd argue the same is true for a musician, filmmaker or studio artist. The more time one is able to dedicate, the greater the opportunity for innovation. It seems idiotic to deny that innovation does not increase and benefit by a greater investment of time and increased experience. Most innovation is not a thunderbolt from above, it comes from hard work and dedication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That shouldn't be too hard to set up, in America, right? Their pro-tax, right?
Problem solved. Socialism all the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Real innovation comes from new insights - you only get those by doing things other than simply sitting down and trying to write/compose/ whatever.
The track record of those who have (by whatever means) been freed from the need to work at some kind of day job is actually appallingly bad - see my quote from Feynmann below.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it's very easy here is Richard Feynmann:
from "The dignified Professor"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It has been called "one of the most important poems of the 20th century."
That's pretty impressive while working at a bank during the day."
yes, and once that talent was spotted, he was able to spend the rest of his life as an artist, without the concerns of the day to day. He didn't have to work a day job to be creative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists can do that, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Artists can do that, you know.
Go make a feature length film while working full time at the bank and let us know how that works out for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or better yet, I'll make a movie about banks in other movies! How many movies take place in banks? This sounds kind of fun.
It'll be a collage of bank movies.
Great idea man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every time there's skepticism about your entitlement to be paid, in perpetuity, any ransom you demand for every steaming pile you crap out, or skepticism about the ever-greater legal protections you want for your industries, you trot out the moral hyperbole. Well, it's b.s., and we're calling you out on it. As consumers, and as pragmatic artists, we are unmoved by your Chicken Little routine; we will continue to loudly bristle at legislation, litigation, and campaigns which tell us that art will die, artists will starve, unemployment will rise, and economies will crumble if we don't cough up enough cash for the eighth Police Academy movie* every time it rapes our eyeballs.
* oh yes, it's coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I always tell people in creative fields they won't make any money at it
I do this because
(1) For most people this will be true.
(2) To get into creative fields as a way to make money is the wrong reason to do it (there are easier ways to make money).
(3) If people feel they MUST do something creative, whether or not they make any money at it, that is a sign they are probably making the right decision for themselves. Let me paint a picture of all the sacrifices you will have to make to live the life of a full-time creative, and if you still want to do it, then I will help you develop business plans.
I've been a critical of all the conferences, consultants, etc. encouraging hopeful creatives to believe the Internet has bought forth a new opportunity for creatives to make money.
No, what it has done is allowed that many more people to share their creativity. But in the process. more people are competing for a fairly fixed pot of consumer dollars (if anything, disposable income has gone down as with the recession).
Creativity will always be with us. People will create. But making money at it doesn't necessarily follow. Sure, a few people will do so. But they won't necessarily be the most creative. They will simply be those who have best figured out to work the system to collect money from people or companies.
I think it is more honest to encourage everyone to be creative, whether or not they produce great art. It is the process itself that is rewarding. Play music with friends. Paint your own pictures to hang on the walls. Take videos and upload them. They don't have to be masterpieces. You don't have to make money. But your life will probably be better for it.
And keep your day job that pays the bills unless you can figure out how not to have any bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
think different. radically different. )*(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trace Cyrus/Ashland High gives current album away free!
I met Trace back in 2009 after a Metro Station concert. Cool dude!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]