On 22/01/15 14:38, Katherine Phelps wrote:
So what was their conclusion? Giving artists money depletes creativity.
That's not what I took from it. My understanding was that making money
through commercialisation was less encouraging than getting awards,
grants or simply income support, none of which came with the same
pressures to make what sells well. That said, your points are also
excellent:
Perhaps not having control over the material depletes creativity.
Perhaps having someone standing over you expecting you to produce
reduces creativity. Perhaps power relations over freedom obliterates
creative drive.
Perhaps the solution isn't to stop giving artists money. Perhaps
everyone does better when everyone's needs are met first, and then
people choose to work and contribute in whatever way suits them.
Obviously artists need an income, just like everyone else! The article
is about the difference between internal and external motivation, and
while I don't accept that external motivation necessarily results in
less creativity - sometimes it can provide valuable feedback about what
the audience is actually interested in, and therefore help shape the
works so that they better reach the audience - I think it's reasonable
to suggest that the present situation where those very few artists who
achieve financial success are largely those who are the most commercial
could probably be improved upon by offering more support to other
artists who could really use the support.
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://www.xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
http://www.glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
http://www.sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics