io9 ran an article on the Google Books settlement today. I skimmed the article when I realized it was trying to take an unequivocal stance on legally and morally hazy ground, and read the comments.
There I found an example of one of an argument I’ve often found dogging the heels of people who want to make a living by art: “you should do it for the love, not for the money.” “Never make your passion your business.”
Gah!
Let me put on my ranting hat for a moment.
*finds hat*
The fact that a writer wishes to be paid for her work does not mean that money is the sole motivation for that work. Artists make art for the love of it; they’ll write, act, sing for free, and the world will starve them as they live and celebrate their greatness after they’re safely dead. Arts unions exist for precisely this reason – at their best, they protect artists from people who will take their life’s work without so much as a “thank you.” Sure, a writer shouldn’t write or a composer compose or an actor act for money (these fields are rarely well-paid), but nor should they allow themselves to be exploited.
If money disappears from arts, we’ll end up in a world where there are no artists, where the most creative people are dilletantes who scribble a measure or two at night after they return from their bank job, building one symphony in 70 years. What a loss for the world.