Hard News: Art and the Big Guy
143 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Hadyn yawns and rubs his eyes after a sick day in bed, clicks on the internet and checks the PA System.
He is shocked and stunned that today's topic is rugby and art, and somehow, in this country, we have let the artists take over the thread :D
Seriously though re: Rugby
I think Kit talked about it back on page 2. I've written and ranted about this a lot on my blog and my podcast. (pimpin') Also note the date on the blog post (2005)The SANZAR union doesn't have the market size enough to compete with the northern unions. South Africa is the country that could come the closest, as Australia's audience is split with league.
But however we might try small market teams can never compete with large market teams...unless we change everything.
A new competition with 16 teams based in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Argentina. The teams don't have to be split evenly between the countries but there should be a provision for some kind of extension. This brings in big markets and teams that can beat each other.
Now here's the real kicker you add in a...wait for it...SALARY CAP and REVENUE SHARING system. Woooooooooo!
That should help teams compete to keep players around for longer.
ps. I like artists, pay 'em proper!
-
regulation tends to distort market forces. Distortion of market forces tends to lead to inefficiency and inefficiency tends to create opportunity for exploitation, which seems to require more intervention.
That can be true but it's through regulation that property rights are enforced.
When art dealers make big money from selling the paintings of particular artists then they are exploiting the reputation of that artist - that's the selling point, not (or not just) the painting's artistic merit. One could argue that that reputation doesn't belong to the artist - it's a social construct, but it belongs even less to the the dealer and the purchaser - but they both benefit. So should the artist.
-
__regulation tends to distort market forces. Distortion of market forces tends to lead to inefficiency and inefficiency tends to create opportunity for exploitation, which seems to require more intervention.__
That can be true but it's through regulation that property rights are enforced.
Yes. And the very invention of copyright could have been seen as an outrageous market intervention at the time.
For all that we complain about copyright, it's not all about rights creep at the malign hand of corporations. It feeds a few people I know in entirely justifiable, market-oriented, ways.
One outcome of the resale royalty would be the creation of a collection agency, which would become a new lobbby group, for visual artists. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.
When the New Zealand domain name registry wound up with the .nz revenue stream, it almost went horribly, horribly, horribly wrong. But what emerged, Internet NZ, seems to operate efficiently and provides a really useful voice. APRA, representing songwriters, has also grown in to a useful advocacy role for New Zealand music -- and unlike certain other rights bodies, has a rep of being straightforward and realistic on licensing issues. I think one key thing for such groups is that they respresent local interests.
I seem to be convincing myself on this ...
PS: For those who read this comment earlier, on consideration, I added another "horribly" to my assessment of how horribly wrong the whole .nz thing almost went. Two just didn't seem enough. And anyone who is inclined to think poorly of David Farrar should be grateful for his role in the democratic coup that saved us all ...
-
merc,
Well maybe you are...Mike Chunn was a good head for APRA...
-
merc you shouldn't take it so personally. I will restate my position, because its a simple one really. No one forces anyone to be an artist. No one makes you be a currency trader for that matter. People decide on what they want to do for a range of reasons. Some seek vocations - nurse and teachers - some chase money, the currency traders. Some feel the need to be artists, and create arty stuff. Nowhere in any of those choices is there a guarantee you will make a good living or indeed any living at all.
Now, to me a deal is a deal - I agree to buy something off you at a price we both agree represents the value of that object at the time of purchase. Ownership then transfers to the new owner. Simple. And you know, I am absolutely stumped if I can see a reason why artists should be granted an exemption to that rule. I can see the reasoning behind this idea, I just don't agree with it.
-
Oh and on rugby - when was the last time any of the All Blacks played two or three weeks in a row for their club side, the community they are supposed to belong to first and foremost? When your top players are just a rootless condotierri searching for the best paymaster, player drain will inevitably accelerate.
-
merc,
Tom, I didn't take it personally, even when you tried to inflame (posh poseurs), and at no time did I say I was for or against the royalty system. As RB said, let's discuss, in my opinion you veered off into lala land and didn't even attempt to rationally discuss the issue at hand.
A deal is a deal and if you and I made one, you'd know it, and spare me the dissonant argument, I have a chosen "career" (I'm a Technical Writer) and I am a published poet who paints, I've had my own business before (11 years) and done alot of other things besides, so don't pidgeon-hole me, that I do take offense to.I can see the reasoning behind this idea, I just don't agree with it.
So why not start with this premise and state your case logically?
-
merc,
Tom, my brother was a professional rugby player and my nephew is, do you actually know any? Or any "artists" for that matter?
-
when was the last time any of the All Blacks played two or three weeks in a row for their club side
Quite a few of them turn out for their clubs. Jerry Collins, for one, is well known for showing up for his club (Northern?). While still an All Black, Tana Umaga played for Petone regularly.
-
merc,
You club is your club, that's for sure, mine was Cornwall Park, now Carlton, that jersey, those crossed arm photos, the names of the guys I won and lost with, player of the day, cold showers, bring a plate prize-giving, every pair of boots I owned, the way I laced them, my mouthguard, my Mum beating me to the tryline...the clubs are there, go to one on any given Saturday and treat yourself.
-
Mention was made a while back of the digital rights to McCahon's works. How will those sorts of property rights fit in with resale royalties?
I could imagine artists selling the paiting but keeping the didgial rights - which could wind up being worth more. And would digital rights be liable to resale royalty?
-
Cough... Perhaps I'm running in the wrong circles, but I don't know anyone who buys rare and antiquarian books by the truckload either. I can't for the life of me see why as recently as last November I saw a signed first edition copy Stephen King's Carrie sold for over NS$7,500. I've even seen first editions of the the Lord of the Rings trilogy (and we're not talking first impressions in fine or near-mint condition) offered for upwards of NZ$20,000.
The analogy still fails because authors and painters make the bulk of their money in totally different ways. Comparing an author to a painter would only be valid if authors made money from their original manuscripts and the printing press didn't exist.
-
Comparing an author to a painter would only be valid if authors made money from their original manuscripts and the printing press didn't exist.
A-ha! And so it begins ... the argument over which artist deserves a rolyalty and which doesn't. So if a painter paints an original canvas s/he gets a royalty, but if a painter produces prints ofthat artwork they don't? What if they produce "signed, numbered, limited edition prints"?? And I guess art photographers will get nothing too if they run off more than one copy.
-
merc,
Reference Dali on the signing of prints and royalties thingy. These instances we describe here are all known and legislated for, except as far as I know in NZ, because NZ Govt's know nothing about the business of art. Weird link,
http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_cruise_art_auctions_scam_fraud.htm -
Nobody: And, indeed, one of the biggest problems I see in this is the degree of judgment about what would be involved so as not to result in Nat's worst-case scenario, where first -sale doctrine is blown away. Or, at the other end, we end up with Muldoon-era judgements about what is and is not worth of post-sale royalty.
Personally I'd say if one were to go down this route it ought to be pegged to items that aren't mass produced. Your painting or one-off custom chopper, sure; your signed limited edition print perhaps; your book or poster? Not so much.
-
Back to the rugby:
Over in the states, home of the professional athlete, when football players introduce themselves they always (always) say their College team. Even if they are in their 30's! So roots are important to the pros.But playing for your club side won't keep players here.
-
merc,
Not everyone aspires to being a paid pro, some play for other reasons.
-
Not everyone aspires to being a paid pro, some play for other reasons
Yeah but we're not talking about losers....just a joke, just a joke :)
-
you lose a lot when you start getting paid for something you like doing.
-
Is the sarcasm Ridley?
Personally I would love to get paid to do something I want to do. As opposed to doing something I'm not really into just to pay for my hobbies.
-
Is the sarcasm Ridley?
Crap what is with my typing this arvo?!
-
perfectly serious hadyn. when something intrinsically rewarding is changed to being extrinsically rewarding, the peasure diminishes.
don't believe me? try it some time. or google some of the literature on the topic. -
merc,
You have come far Agent R, it is true what you say, it is (Yoda noise).
-
thank you Master
-
Not everyone aspires to being a paid pro, some play for other reasons
Methinks Merc is actually Steve Crow.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.