I don't disagree - but just 'cos it ain't right doesn't mean it
doesn't happen. And my point was exactly that a band isn't like a
gallery artist - you drew that analogy.
That said, there's hardly an artistic endeavour where the average
artist of any type makes more than the organiser/administrator/
curator etc. And it will continue as long as good venues and curators
are hard to find and struggling artists are desperate to break
through. Of course it's a business - but the artists are suppliers of
raw material, not the businessmen. That's why successful musicians
start their own record labels and actors turn to producing/directing.
As to the strippers - why do they have to be employees? Many here (I
understand from an ex-student who is one) are self-employed and will
even move between venues during a night. They are performers and a
performer is very rarely an employee of the venue.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 25/05/2007, at 4:09 PM, Chris Crawford wrote:
> Strippers paying the stage fee you mention is illegal in many
> states in the
> USA because those women are employees and the law generally
> requires that an
> employer pay en employee when he/she is at work. So its not really
> like an
> artist exhibiting or even a band performing.
>
> Even the band playing isn't like the artist in a gallery. The band
> will
> almost certainly make money selling merchandise like CDs, an artist
> can't do
> that, all he can sell is his piece of artwork and in the average
> multi-artist exhibit relatively few sell anything. It's not a good
> deal for
> artists, its exploitative and it would stop if enough artists
> realized that
> art is a BUSINESS and that as the producers of the art they have as
> much
> right to an income from it as a factory worker has when he produces
> product
> that someone else sells for a profit.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|