Herb and Dorothy, and the Ethics of Not Paying For Your Consumption of Culture

NYC ERE · Post by **NYC ERE** » Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:10 am

It's totally off-topic, and counter-ERE, but an interesting documentary about two middle-income art collectors in New York. Since the '50s, they've lived on her salary (/retirement?) and spent all of his salary on art. On one hand, they seem like packrats, especially when you see their preferred way of displaying their art; on the other hand, they seem really engaged with and passionate about their collecting. (and of course, many of these turn out to be extremely good investments, but that's kind of a side issue)
Without their support, some of these now-famous artists might not have gotten by in their early days. Herb and Dorothy value the art; they pay for the art.
Do you value art? Will you support the arts in ERE? I ask because I'm a small collector of 'indie' or 'alternative' comics, most of whose authors/artists live modestly. After reading Chris Ware's latest "Acme Novelty Library" (#20) at Barnes and Noble, I found myself moved like by no other 'comic book' I've ever read. I left empty-handed, and thought I might send Mr. Ware $5 as my contribution to such an amazing piece of art. I haven't done this yet, and I'm now inclined to actually support his publisher and distributors as well, by actually buying the thing.
What about music? Do you plan to pay for the music you enjoy in ERE? If not, how do you rationalize this?

Post by **jacob** » Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:08 am

In the normal definition of the word, I don't value art because it simply doesn't connect strongly with me. I spent 15 minutes in the National Gallery of Art a few years ago and it was the most boring time I ever had since high school, high school being somewhat of a low point in terms of mental stimulation.
That said, I do value craftsmanship and mechanical constructions. A steam engine in operation speaks to me in the same way that art speaks to others. Take a 4x loupe to a mechanical watch---that's art to me.
In terms of music I mainly operate on the secondary market. I get things used.

AlexOliver · Post by **AlexOliver** » Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:17 am

I value art. I am also an artist.
I won't pay for art, but am open to donating to the artist.
I don't pay for music, but I pay for shows. I rationalize this because most artists don't make anything from record sales. If there's a band I want to support, I donate money, because I don't want physical CDs or DRM-laden MP3s.
In the same vein, I value literature but don't pay for books. Again, I'd be open to donating if I had excess money.

beany · Post by **beany** » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:55 pm

I value art very strongly and like my other expenses, art figures into the equation. I work with the arts so am very grateful that I can do so and being able to work in the arts has allowed me to gain a deeper appreciation for artists. I am not an actual artist in that I've never pursued my artistic inclinations - but it is something I intend to pursue once I reach FI. Because I value small time, independent artists (visual, music), the art that I support isn't outrageously expensive. But it adds a lot of non-quantifiable value to my life.
Unlike the couple mentioned in the OP, I'm not much of a collector of actual art,I prefer experiencing it much more and like the poster above me I donate money as well. Music I do purchase - sometimes new, but I convert it to oggs and then giveaway or sell the actual CDs.

George the original one · Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:21 pm

I value the creativity and skill that goes into art. I won't pay for mass produced art (e.g. Kinkade - you're paying HOW much for a glorified POSTER?), but unique items that are low-cost are fair game (eBay produced some gems).
Music, writing, movies... yes, they're art, but they're also commodities. My wife & I have our share and books are the biggest money leak (English degrees, you know?), but we try to buy used/sale items.
50% of a family's income for art is extreme. That particular couple live in one of the few locations that can get away with it, but it's not a suitable strategy for most people becuase it requires multiple talents: spotting a good artist, being socialable enough to make friends with them, being involved in the arts community to the extent that you're recognized as a patron, having good employment that the income is available, etc.
I've mentioned it before... Portland has a 1% for Arts program, where any new public building project is required to reserve 1% of the budget for art. There's nothing wrong with an ERE individual budgeting a similar amount for art that they value. 1% isn't going to break your ERE plan (provided you don't go overboard and have 20 such items in your plan, LOL!).
[just remember to stick to the budget and know that if you purchase art you also need to consider how to store it]

NYC ERE · Post by **NYC ERE** » Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:07 pm

One of the elements of ERE that resonates strongly with me is "being the change you want to see in the world." I am one of those people who complains about the low quality of our mass media--the funny pages, television, most mainstream film. Much like in ecology, these media exist and thrive because they have found a rewarding niche; if nobody watched, if nobody was manipulated by the ads to buy things, "The Housewives of X" would go extinct.
Mass media surrounds us and largely defines our culture; because of its ubiquity and influence, I'd say it's a permanent part of our actual environment. By not consuming the crappier elements of it, you shape it; by consuming the better elements, you shape it. However, by minimizing your expenditure on it, restricting yourself to the secondary market, stealing it--torrents, etc.--you largely relinquish your "vote", your incremental influence on it. Are you comfortable with not "being this change you want to see?"

AlexOliver · Post by **AlexOliver** » Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:24 pm

The change I want to see is free distribution of media such as music, movies, television shows (good ones), etc.
Basically I'm being the change I want to see, but not necessarily the change you want to see.

NYC ERE · Post by **NYC ERE** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:14 am

@Alex Free distribution--this seems reasonable, given the tiny incremental costs of distributing media in our modern age. However, production still costs something--quite a lot, in fact, for most music, TV and film; I take it you're comfortable with having others pay for the production? Or will you only consume media produced by dead people, whose production has presumably been fully repaid for? (from <1930 perhaps)

Jon · Post by **Jon** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:07 am

Zev, one could argue that the free distribution of digital media would quickly destroy crappy entertainment. If the business model changed such that people would only pay to see the further production of a piece of media, instead of the opportunity to simply consume it, then I believe the entertainment landscape would move much closer to being supported by an engaged and deliberate public.
I know I have downloaded certain artists music, only to buy the physical album later to support them. Now downloading a piece of media for free is significantly different from reading a comic book freely, but I believe in Zev's case he also expressed the same attitude of consuming the media then later deciding to support. In both of our cases paying for ownership is irrelevant, we pay to support.

AlexOliver · Post by **AlexOliver** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:48 am

Production costs for music can be the cost of a laptop. Production costs for a TV show or movie can be the cost of a smartphone or camcorder. Along with the free labor of those passionate enough to work on it, of course. It's not my problem if somebody chooses to spend millions to make a movie.
If you doubt this, the cost of a wildly successful movie--Paranormal Activity-- was $10k. Basically the cost of the actors and a couple camcorders set up on tripods. Independent musicians have been recording and distributing music from their Macbooks for years.

KevinW · Post by **KevinW** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:21 am

Digital media is a nonrival good whose reproduction cost is negligible, so I think we might as well make it all free for the common good. I like open source software and creative commons media and prioritize it over proprietary alternatives.
However, I believe that respecting contracts follows from the Golden Rule and is a cornerstone of a free society. So, if I must use something that requires a paid license, I pay for it. I expect others to live up to their contractual obligations to me, ergo I should live up to my contractual obligations to others.

AlexOliver · Post by **AlexOliver** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:25 am

@KevinW: What are you referring to with licenses?

KevinW · Post by **KevinW** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:48 am

Software that is supposed to be paid for, music that is supposed to be paid for, etc.

NYC ERE · Post by **NYC ERE** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:40 pm

@AlexOliver Again, a totally consistent ethos--only listening to music made on a laptop; only watching films made for a few thousand dollars. I enjoyed Open Water--$750k budget, which is quite cheap--as well as Paranormal Activity. These films are as good as anything in their genre--horror--and there are plenty of examples of even better films in other genres that cost very little--The Duplass Brothers come to mind.
However, for me it's impossible to limit myself only to media that happens to be low-budget. And frankly, I don't believe you if you're claiming that you do limit yourself in this fashion.

AlexOliver · Post by **AlexOliver** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:53 pm

I never claimed I do. I said "It's not my problem if somebody chooses to spend millions to make a movie."

hickchick · Post by **hickchick** » Fri May 27, 2011 3:04 am

Sorry to dig up a tired old thread, but what AlexOliver isn't taking into account is that the VAST majority of Macbook produced "music" is complete dreck. Poor sound quality, recorded by musicians with no understanding of the recording process. You know what would be awesome? 15 toms! Sweet!
Even if you're recording directly to your laptop you probably need a mixer and a selection of mics. Instruments and gear get pretty costly too.
Now, you can always take samples and prerecorded beats and just record a vocal track and call it good. Timbaland has built a career doing just that. Dr. Dre is amazing because he uses real musicians playing real instruments to capture something alive.
There is also something to be said for the years of investment in practicing and honing your craft.
As far as movies go, the only real low-budget film I can really get behind is Clerks. I don't think it's fair to call Tarantino's early work low-budget and I'm not a fan of the movies mentioned earlier.
The old adage you get what you pay for applies.

irononmaiden · Post by **irononmaiden** » Mon May 30, 2011 5:51 am

Zev, your question about making one's "vote" count is a really good one. I think about this a lot.
Most of the "art" I take in is mass media. Also, software and apps. My ethics boil down to:

--Will it affect the creators' direct income if I buy this instead of getting it illegally? (If yes, I buy.)

--Does this need my "vote" to stay viable? (If yes, I buy or consume in a measurable way.)

--Could I feasibly pay a reasonable price for this? (If yes, I buy.)

--Is this covered by another service I already pay for? (If no, I buy.)
This basically means that I buy all music and software, watch less-popular shows like American Pickers on the official website, torrent popular shows like True Blood, and torrent movies that I'd be able to get through Netflix (since I'm a customer).
I also torrent books sometimes, if I need them right away and they would be available at the public library.
These decisions are probably more important to people who have offbeat tastes. (RIP Firefly.)

hickchick · Post by **hickchick** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:55 am

@irononmaiden - Firefly. Word.