Poll: Money & Art

One of the debates I have noticed on this board (and seen mentioned in the literature) is that of accepting payment for the craft of Tarot (however one practices it: reading cards, writing books, creating decks, etc.) versus not accepting payment.

Does the acceptance of money signal some sort of moral compromise? In other words, is there a “conflict of interest” between creating something out of love and receiving cash in return?

The selections above are meant to form a spectrum, from “money is bad for art” on one end to “money is good for art” on the other). Although you may find yourself agreeing with more than one statement, try to find the one that is closest to your true beliefs. And of course, I’d love to hear everyone’s opinions.

None of the statements describe it for me. Money maybe good or bad but IMO its not (or rather should not) be related with art. Money evil or not evil has IMO nothing to do with all this, the real question I see if someone who is doing art (and I guess you mean Tarot related art) does this from a view of passion or profit. The first automaticly implies that the real value (which, IMVHO can NEVER be expressed in money) will eventually be determined by a bunch of people conducting the free market pattern. The ancient old art of request and demand which will eventually determine the price, and as such the influence the money has.

The latter, now thats a more serious issue. There are quite a few decks out there who's author(s) I suspect to be solely driven by this force. I am not getting into details here since I cannot backup my accusations with solid leads, but do wish to express my disgust with it. From a Tarot users point of view the act alone will influence the deck as a whole which maybe something inevitable but also something unneeded since art cannot (or should not) be driven by money or whatever material wealth or desire what so ever. Its inevitable, but for the people who know whats going on its bound to make the serious efforts also shine out.

So for me I guess that I don't think money is involved with Tarot when talking about the serious and good decks out there. Don't believe me? Ok. Look at one of the decks of all time, the Rider-Waite deck. Look at what happened to the author and how long it took untill she got the reconition she deserved. Got that? Good. Now also look at some other decks from that time, yes, they're underground, and see what their authors produced. Thats my point in this matter.

aaaaah, it feels good to get a little rant out just before the end of the weekend ;-)

Artists like everyone else should be paid for the work they do. The romantic notion of the starving artist living in a Parisian Garret on stale bread and water is long gone. Creating something, whether it is a book, piece of music or sculpture is time consuming and exhausting. Why on earth should that be done for nothing? The arts are very poorly funded at the best of times, I think artists deserve every penny of what little they get.

If however, that artist chooses to give away their work, that is their prerogative. I'm not sure though if a tarot reading counts as 'art'.

Moving onto the second part of the argument, should an artist create soley for money. Yup. If that's what they want to do and they get well paid for it - good for them

caridwen said:

Artists like everyone else should be paid for the work they do.

Click to expand...

There is no denying that. But what is going to determine the amount ? Are these people doing art solely for the love of the art itself or for the money ? Thats my main concern.

Ofcourse they should be paid. But as long as this is going in a normal manner where the artist makes something, "taxes" it and then collects its all fine with me. But unfortunatly that doesn't seem the way many modern decks take these days, which I find rather sad.

Creating something, whether it is a book, piece of music or sculpture is time consuming and exhausting.

Click to expand...

Is it ?

Suppose you have a hobby and the hobby in itself also allows you actually create something. Say you take up artwork as a hobby. Does the act of processing still give the same consumption and exhaustion as if you'd be working on a mere working project? I don't think so. The moment where the driving force is actually the love for the thing you do the end results are bound to become a lot better than if the only thing filling your mind is of material basis.

Why on earth should that be done for nothing? The arts are very poorly funded at the best of times, I think artists deserve every penny of what little they get.

Click to expand...

I never implied that it had to be done for nothing. All I'm saying is that the art being produced shouldn't be produced from the view of wealth but for the love of the trade. With that in mind I fully agree with you; they do indeed deserve whatever they get, but the process is something I am weary off. Do we get artists who produce a deck only loved by a very select rich & wealthy incrowd (automaticly followed by a bunch of people who in reality really hate the design but since the "upper class" loves it so will they) or do we get artists who produce and basicly await how the end result will turn out to be? My sympathies go with the latter. And I'm sure to be willing to pay some extra for that. Heck, that motivation was the thriving force for me to also buy Joan Bunning's book after I downloaded, read and studied it.

In my opinion art and money are not relative ,art is expansive non coherent to many . When a burning desire to create is felt it can be bordered by a desire for cash .Money is not art to those apart from stock brokers etc ,yes artists need to survive to live to have respect but to be an artist is also to be misunderstood to live in a world apart .
And from this art is created to break boundaries ...........
With Light

I am presuming that this about Tarot Art. I think that one would create Tarot for the love of it, and any money made would be a bonus. Tarot Art is not going to make the Artist independently wealthy. I feel the creation of Art is a drive to do so, and the end result is aside from money; but it takes money to create the Art. So if someone has created a deck, I will pay for it if I want the deck. That is their due. Every labourer is worthy of their hire so the Good Book says. Does money corupt the Art? I do not think so. The Artist themselves could become corrupt, with money the main force for creating it. It would be hard to tell the motives I think. So really I cannot answer your poll with one tick- but it is an interesting debate.~Rosanne

Hmmm...

Tarots should be made for love. Fame and fortune is not the most likely outcome, so the deck should be made from passion and not a desire for cash.

However, there are several people (not Tarot artists) who are cashing in big-time on decks. Mostly they are New Age writers who are not artists, and they fire off one deck idea after another while some in-house artist draws up some quick sketches (or a graphic designer puts some simple words on a card) and next week they have a new idea. Some of these types of decks use art they downloaded from the internet. And when there are even decks like The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and, I kid you not, The Prayer of Jabez (!), someone is in it for a quick profit, not for the love of art.

But in Tarot itself, not decks in general, I'm not sure too many people are in it for a quick buck (and I won't name those whom I suspect may be). I believe the deeper decks will outlast the decks made for cash rather than passion.

My dad is an artist, and when I was growing up, he was in it for the art alone and he had a real chip on his shoulder against people who make what he called "commercial art." As he got older and the reality of finance mattered more to him, he realized that his art would have to be somewhat commercial if he planned to make a living at it. He still loves art, but he approaches it in a different way, is more successful at it, and the desire to make a profit has not compromised the art itself (his art has gotten better over the years, as is the case with most artists, whether they do it for love or money).

In my typical Libra ascendant way, I can see both sides of the issue and I could argue either way.

Lion-O said:

There is no denying that. But what is going to determine the amount ? Are these people doing art solely for the love of the art itself or for the money ? Thats my main concern.

Click to expand...

My point is: it doesn't really matter what people's motivations are. Whether someone works solely to make cash or solely for the love of creating, the end product is the same. There has to be a happy medium between the fact that artists need to live in this world and that means paying rent or buying materials for their work. They are doing a job like everyone else and should be paid for it. Making a chair is also a highly skilled craft but I don't see you telling the carpenter that they should charge you less because they should love what they do.

Ofcourse they should be paid. But as long as this is going in a normal manner where the artist makes something, "taxes" it and then collects its all fine with me. But unfortunatly that doesn't seem the way many modern decks take these days, which I find rather sad.

Click to expand...

I don't think it matters, like I said above, what one's motivation for creating a deck is. What matters is the end result and it has to be commercially orientated or it won't sell. Unless you are making a deck solely for your own use, you have to make it commercially viable. It's an expensive time consuming process.

Is it ?

Click to expand...

I'm assuming this is either a) ironic or b) you haven't created anything. It took me a year to write my first novel. Working around fifty hours a week ontop of a full time job. Each spare moment I wrote at the expense of everything else. Not only is there the physical tiredness involved but the mental exhaustion. Then to be told that I should give it away for free?

Suppose you have a hobby and the hobby in itself also allows you actually create something. Say you take up artwork as a hobby. Does the act of processing still give the same consumption and exhaustion as if you'd be working on a mere working project? I don't think so. The moment where the driving force is actually the love for the thing you do the end results are bound to become a lot better than if the only thing filling your mind is of material basis.

Click to expand...

This is purely hypothetical and a mixture of the argument. A hobby is not a profession it's a hobby. You don't get paid for hobbies - that's the point. When you start trying to sell the end product of your hobby it becomes a profession ie something you do for money. You can still love your work.

All I'm saying is that the art being produced shouldn't be produced from the view of wealth but for the love of the trade.

Click to expand...

Here we see differently. I am absolutely delighted for Damien Hurst and writers such as J K Rowling. Just because you are commercially successful does not mean you love your work or craft any less.

I'm also delighted although not so much, for John Grisham and Stephen King who are driven by commercial success. I don't think how much money they make changes the end product.

caridwen said:

My point is: it doesn't really matter what people's motivations are. Whether someone works solely to make cash or solely for the love of creating, the end product is the same.

Click to expand...

I don't fully agree. There lies a danger where Tarot decks are being developed and produced in such a way where it more easily appeals to as many people as possible in order to make the most money out of the trade. When such an attitude would be picked up by more artists then I'd predict the quantity of decks rising but I'm not that sure that the quality will remain the same.

A drive to make money isn't solely a matter of making the best product. The whole process is much more diverse than that, for example there is also the issue of trying to reduce costs, getting rid of financially uninteresting overhead, etc.

Now, I'm not saying that when someone is in it for the money then this is how it will end per definition, but I for one don't like the idea of this risk one single bit.

There has to be a happy medium between the fact that artists need to live in this world and that means paying rent or buying materials for their work. They are doing a job like everyone else and should be paid for it. Making a chair is also a highly skilled craft but I don't see you telling the carpenter that they should charge you less because they should love what they do.

Click to expand...

Which, for me, basicly turns the whole question into that of "Should producing Tarot decks actually be a trade one can make a living from". I have some serious doubts. Making money is one thing, but this might eventually lead to the doom scenario I described above.

I'm assuming this is either a) ironic or b) you haven't created anything. It took me a year to write my first novel. Working around fifty hours a week ontop of a full time job. Each spare moment I wrote at the expense of everything else. Not only is there the physical tiredness involved but the mental exhaustion. Then to be told that I should give it away for free?

Click to expand...

It seems you're missing my point completely. I never suggested that the work should be given away for free, quite on the contrary. My concerns solely lie in the driving force. No one in their right mind will dispute that the process in itself involves effort and costs, and that the author deserves a reward for their work if its liked and used by others. But when money is talking you should be weary.

A more extreme example: a "well known" artist creates a painting where he basicly throws brushes of paint against the canvas and the end result is "modern art", immediatly valued at a price of at least $2000,-. Time to create this "masterpiece": 10 minutes. Another artist creates a painting where be basicly divides the canvas into 3 vertical parts, each with their own color. Estimated value is at least $10.000,- or more. And ofcourse your average art critics simply adore the masterpieces. Naturally an infant could have made the same kind of work, but since he's not known and respected by the incrowd his work will never reach the values mentioned above.

Now... The question here is: do these people produce their work for the love of the trade or is it money talking? I have some very serious doubts, and its these doubts which make me very weary when you're reaching a point when people are only in it for the money since there is always a risk of the trade itself becoming corrupted.

Lion-O said:

Naturally an infant could have made the same kind of work

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you're saying. But the quote above made me groan. Really, I have heard so many people claim that one piece or another of art could have been made by an infant, and usually the person saying it knows little to nothing about art. It's just a statement that brings groans from me. Now in Tarot, there *is* an abundance of untrained artwork, and it's not always a bad thing (sometimes it is). But in the non-Tarot art world, I've seen pieces that people dismiss as something their two year old could do, and often it's anything but. These pieces usually have a lot to do with color, light, proportion and a lot of other factors that the artist is well-trained in, even if you don't spot it. It's often the difference between semi-literate writing and e.e. cummings or between a baby playing with instruments and jazz. Abstract art is not the same as amateur art.