The Bad Economy Seems To Be Effecting Entertainment

MDM, sorry to say, but at that point, you're just selling your model...

This is why good working relationships and connections are extremely important.

I have not had more than 3 days of dead-time between projects this whole year - mostly because of teams I work with who hire me for the next project, and the next, and the next etc.

Also, I've luckily got a foot in to the Music business as well as the film post production industry and balance both of those in my schedule accordingly.
 
Murdock said:
What pops into my mind when I read this is the "Piss CHrist" piece by Andres Serrano. To sum it up, the art is a

plactic crucifix in a glass of the artist's urine. Serrano received $15k for the work, part of which was paid for by

the National Endowment for the Arts. So, to get to the point, it would be okay for government to subsidise art if

everyone could agree on what is art. Reason being we are all(hopefully) good tax payers. So we all have an

interest in where that money goes. In the above situation, you can imagine what the Christians had to say about

this art. Me personaly I have no opinion on the art, but I do have one on Gov funding art. Goverments are too

good at wasting money to give them another avenue for waste. So let artists practise for arts sake. Thats why

we do it in the first place right?? And if money is the motivating factor, find a patron, start a different business to

fund your art, or whatever. Just my opinion, and to be more on topic. Where I work we never really slowed

down. However a large part of thte business is involved in the tobacco industry soooo. :)
Click to expand...
There're lots of things that I'd rather my government didn't spend money on because I don't approve of them, but I guess that's part of the deal. I think it's worth remembering that a lot of artists who command great respect today were completely unappreciated in their lifetime, and even shunned by the established artists and institutions (Van Gogh comes to mind). While the appeal of Piss Christ is lost on me too, I feel art should be about exploring concepts and boundaries, and it would be a great shame were we to lose a wealth of culture because they did not have mass appeal. I'm sure there are quite a few artists who would work for the love of art alone, but even artists need to eat and somewhere to sleep. I might not like all the art that is subsidised by government funds, but that's the nature of the beast, and I think the human race is always better off with more art.

aceofspades70 said:
I have seen a nose dive. I have attended 4 conventions...and lost my ass on every one of them.

I sold: 3 copies at my first con, 2 at my 2nd, 1 at my third, and 1 at my 4th and LAST.

So, out of approx 1500.00 of expenses for those 4 cons, I sold 70.00 worth of merch. Once people get their 20 dollar autograph, it's over.

No more conventions for me.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, what kind of numbers would you expect to sell normally?
 
Murdock said:
What pops into my mind when I read this is the "Piss CHrist" piece by Andres Serrano. To sum it up, the art is a

plactic crucifix in a glass of the artist's urine. Serrano received $15k for the work, part of which was paid for by

the National Endowment for the Arts. So, to get to the point, it would be okay for government to subsidise art if

everyone could agree on what is art. Reason being we are all(hopefully) good tax payers. So we all have an

interest in where that money goes. In the above situation, you can imagine what the Christians had to say about

this art. Me personaly I have no opinion on the art, but I do have one on Gov funding art. Goverments are too

good at wasting money to give them another avenue for waste. So let artists practise for arts sake. Thats why

we do it in the first place right?? And if money is the motivating factor, find a patron, start a different business to

fund your art, or whatever. Just my opinion, and to be more on topic. Where I work we never really slowed

down. However a large part of thte business is involved in the tobacco industry soooo. :)
Click to expand...

I agree, If you're a career artist, your art should pay any bills you have on it's own merit. If it doesn't, that means the government is more or less funding mediocrity (at least according to the culture he/she is living in).

MDM said:
Well, NYC helps indie producers with free permits to shoot in public places, free police protection, and insurance waivers for budget under $3,000 for the shoot at a specific location. I saved over $3,000 on insurance costs alone last year with that pro indie policy.
Click to expand...

I think that's great too. If a government wants to encourage art, tax deductions and waivers are a better way to do it than actually cutting them a check and paying for it.

In many cultures, government sponsored art has been synonymous with propaganda.

Back on topic:
A down economy hasn't been the only thing hurting the industry... Piracy sucks. Sadly I know people that even though they can afford to spend the money on a DVD will download it illegally. Even when you can't afford a movie, there's not an "unalienable right" to free entertainment. Haha, I'm sure a forum of filmmaker will agree whole-heartedly with that point :)
 
Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC said:
Well, NYC helps indie producers with free permits to shoot in public places, free police protection, and insurance waivers for budget under $3,000 for the shoot at a specific location. I saved over $3,000 on insurance costs alone last year with that pro indie policy.
Click to expand...

Lloyd Kaufman's wife Pattie is the NY State film commissioner. You guys have a lot of film friendly things in place. My state has basically zero.
 
PaulGriffith said:
I agree, If you're a career artist, your art should pay any bills you have on it's own merit. If it doesn't, that means the government is more or less funding mediocrity (at least according to the culture he/she is living in).
Click to expand...

I would have to say something like what chilipie said with respect to this post.

The amount of great artists who have died without making money is astounding. To name a few, Van Gogh, Vermeer and Pissarro, but there are countless others. The fact is that if people were to say 'let's leave it up to the artists to make their own money' we would run the risk of discouraging potentially brilliant people from trying to pursue a career in the arts. The arts are an inherently risky bussiness to get involved in and not making money does not automatically equate to mediocrity.
 
Last edited:
I'm of course, as an "artist" torn on this issue.
It would be great if we had a source of funding (in the US) other than the private sector, BUT somebody is making a decision on who is "worthy" and who isn't. Do I trust the government to make those decisions over private money, not really.
 
PaulGriffith said:
I agree, If you're a career artist, your art should pay any bills you have on it's own merit. If it doesn't, that means the government is more or less funding mediocrity (at least according to the culture he/she is living in).
Click to expand...
I have to completely disagree with this - or are the works of Miley Cyrus more meritorious than those of Van Gogh?

Gonzo_Entertainment said:
I'm of course, as an "artist" torn on this issue.
It would be great if we had a source of funding (in the US) other than the private sector, BUT somebody is making a decision on who is "worthy" and who isn't. Do I trust the government to make those decisions over private money, not really.
Click to expand...
I've no idea how it's run in the states, but public sector funding for the arts in the UK is usually managed by Quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations) who are independent from but connected to the relevant government department. The government supply the money, but the people making the decisions on which projects to fund are often artists or art experts or wealthy art patrons, who will use their own experience and/or connections to help out even further.
 
Last edited:
NickClapper said:
I would have to say something like what chilipie said with respect to this post.

The amount of great artists who have died without making money is astounding. To name a few, Van Gogh, Vermeer and Pissarro, but there are countless others. The fact is that if people were to say 'let's leave it up to the artists to make their own money' we would run the risk of discouraging potentially brilliant people from trying to pursue a career in the arts. The arts are an inherently risky bussiness to get involved in and not making money does not automatically equate to mediocrity.
Click to expand...

I'm sure if Van Gogh had Twitter and Facebook, he could have made money.

Plus, he wasn't looking to make money anyway - if I remember correctly my 2nd grade art class.
 
ROC said:
I'm sure if Van Gogh had Twitter and Facebook, he could have made money.

Plus, he wasn't looking to make money anyway - if I remember correctly my 2nd grade art class.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't about making money as such, but not being appreciated in his own time. There are always going to be artists that don't do well commercially, but Van Gogh had no critical or financial success while he was alive. Given that we are all artists in some way or another, I think it's somewhat self-defeating to dismiss the works of other artists just because they're not massively popular or don't make any money.
 
There's a difference between art and entertainment. Most "artists" in the sense of "I create as an outlet of self expression" aren't rich. Entertainers by definition have to stay current in order to stay in business.

If you want to be an artist, that's great, do it. I or nobody else should have to pay for it though unless we're willing to support you. Van Gogh still supported himself (or found somebody willing to support him) during his lifetime whether he was considered "rich" or not.

EDIT:
I too consider myself an artist. Not every project I work on is art, but some are. I don't expect anyone else to pay for my time pursuing it.
 
Last edited:
ROC said:
I'm sure if Van Gogh had Twitter and Facebook, he could have made money.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is the point. You can take it totally out of context. Whilst there might not have been Twitter or Facebook, there were ways to get art shown. It's not that no art could make money before social networking. Indeed social networking isn't a good way to sell art, all the big deals are still done in the galleries of the major art delearships.

At the time the Impressionist movement was avant garde to the point where they became artistic lepers. Now their paintings seem conservative and (ridiculously) expensive compared with a cup of piss.
 
You take my posts way to literally.

The lady in Catfish sold her paintings for quite a bit of money via her Facebook connections she made

Sometimes I think my jokes are a bit too advanced...
 
I actually emailed her the other day to see how much her paintings would cost. I guess she gets a lot of spam mail now because I've had no reply. Those paintings were truly terrible though. I wasn't even that impressed when I thought it was an eight year old doing them. :P
 
ROC said:
MDM, sorry to say, but at that point, you're just selling your model...



This is why good working relationships and connections are extremely important.



I have not had more than 3 days of dead-time between projects this whole year - mostly because of teams I work with who hire me for the next project, and the next, and the next etc.



Also, I've luckily got a foot in to the Music business as well as the film post production industry and balance both of those in my schedule accordingly.
Click to expand...



ROC, since the models are the stars in the movie, I have no problem with that. I'm all for promoting them like Hollywood promotes names to sell their movies.

According to my friend who is slated to DP my next production, he believes piracy helps to sell DVDs. He believes if someone likes a torrent download enough, they will go out and buy a legit DVD. One of his productions was being downloaded 10,000 times a day before it was released by a distributor.
 
MDM - yeah I meant that as no insult BTW.

Did you know Avatar was the #1 grossing movie of all time as well as the #1 pirated movie of all time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top