Several people pointed out this article on the “dangers” of crowdfunding art to me and asked me what I thought of it. And I admit, my first thought was puzzlement, and maybe a slight allergic reaction: “So this is privilege,” I think is how that thought came out, while listening to someone say that while, yes, Kickstarter and other sources of democratic crowdfunding for the arts can be helpful, they only benefit certain artists, and not enough of them!
Well, yes. But they give more artists a chance than they had before, so why get all elitist about it not helping enough of the artists that you want to see succeed? Oh no! Money is going to shallow, unworthy work! Why complain about it when you can go fund those more worthy works?
More seriously, I am puzzled at anyone who fears the “commodification” of friends and family. First because it assumes that artists never try to get money from people who aren’t also artists… and second because it makes it sound as if the support of friends, family and other artists is somehow less worthy or acceptable than the support of strangers. I sense there a hint of snobbishness: worthy work is that which is loved by strangers; it doesn’t count if some number of nameless people don’t also like it. Because obviously nameless people don’t also have prejudices that might affect how they receive a piece of art! And because your family and friends have no taste and can’t be trusted to give their money to something they think is worthy or important. Even if the thing they think worthy or important is supporting the dream of someone they care about?
What’s more admirable to these people, I wonder? A piece of art that succeeds because it targets an itch a billion strangers want scratched? Or a piece of art that succeeds because a handful of people who care about the artist really believe in it? I suspect if you asked them they’d have a different response based on what they thought of the piece of art in question… which makes it kind of useless as a metric.
Maybe most offensive of all, it assumes that raising money to do a project involves “hitting people up for money” rather than a fair exchange of value for value. What you and I do, gentle readers, is not me “hitting you up” for money. It’s you giving me your hard-earned money because you care about what I do… in exchange for me giving you something awesome that you can’t wait to read/look at/hang on your wall. That’s not “hitting you up for money” with its implication of violence and arm-twisting. It’s us accomplishing something together that we both want, and it is a good thing, and there’s no coercion involved.
So my response to this article is… that it shows the typical hallmarks of the neurotic relationship that artists have with money. They envy the artists who can have it, they don’t altogether understand why they don’t have it, and they feel guilt for wanting it and unworthy of receiving it.
Crowdfunding is a great thing for artists. Could it be even greater? Sure! Are there new payment models just waiting to be discovered by some enterprising business-artists and their enthusiastic patrons? I have no doubt, and I can’t wait to see them (or pioneer them, if I get a bright idea that you all think is also awesome!). Is it a “danger” to art? Not unless you think it’s cool for fewer artists to succeed because some of them might succeed better than others.
*shaking head*
*points*
We’re heading that way. Let’s all go up together. Preferably without complaining about it not being good enough. Let’s not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Hey, you know, I think that article made me angry. How about that, a bona fide rant. >.>
