07 Jul 08
While reading the latest issue of the Economist, I came across an interesting story about how artists in Britain want to confer unearned streams of income for works of art that they have actually sold to others (they would do this by giving a portion of auction sales to their heirs). The problem is that the artist's resale right (ARR) benefits a far smaller proportion of artists than its supporters might assume: Something like 10% of the 1,104 artists benefiting from the ARR in Britain received 80% of the pot. My debate question is: Why do "artistic" types have such nutty, socialistic notions?
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670890
07 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterMaybe their creative, abstract thinking, artistic mind make them realize the beauty of "nutty, socialistic notions".
While reading the latest issue of the Economist, I came across an interesting story about how artists in Britain want to confer unearned streams of income for works of art that they have actually sold to others (they would do this by giving a portion of auction sales to their heirs). The problem is that the artist's resale right (ARR) benefits a ...[text shortened]... alistic notions?
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670890
Proof by contradiction would then have you being non-creative, non-thinking and non-artistic.
Happy to help.
07 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScheelI know plenty of artists, including musicians, actors, painters and sculptors. Most of them live on welfare payments at least half the year and the other half the time, they are one check away from being homeless. For example, my actor friend from college thinks the world is going to hell in a handbasket because he's run up U.S. $80,000 on his credit cards. If that's the life of an artist, give me "normalcy" any day. By the way, you're very wrong about me being "non-creative, non-thinking and non-artistic." I've worked in a creative field for the past 20 years: Journalism.
Maybe their creative, abstract thinking, artistic mind make them realize the beauty of "nutty, socialistic notions".
Proof by contradiction would then have you being non-creative, non-thinking and non-artistic.
Happy to help.
07 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI'm glad to hear that you live an artistic life with input from all layers of society. Could that perhaps some day filter through to your postings here.
I know plenty of artists, including musicians, actors, painters and sculptors. Most of them live on welfare payments at least half the year and the other half the time, they are one check away from being homeless. For example, my actor friend from college thinks the world is going to hell in a handbasket because he's run up U.S. $80,000 on his cr ...[text shortened]... ng and non-artistic." I've worked in a creative field for the past 20 years: Journalism.
At first I was just thrilled, then I accidentially checked one of your links (in the thread on tax). And now I have to say Creativity is NOT something to strive for if you are a journalist. The errors and ommisions in that article is borderline criminal (or at least should be).
I will get back on that.
As for your friend ask him to pay his debt, being exellent on the canvas is not an excuse for being bad on a calculator.
And don't tell me that you fail to see the difference between personal debt and the subject of this thread.
07 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterCrazy like recording companies expecting royalties for ever on a song they didn´t write?
While reading the latest issue of the Economist, I came across an interesting story about how artists in Britain want to confer unearned streams of income for works of art that they have actually sold to others (they would do this by giving a portion of auction sales to their heirs). The problem is that the artist's resale right (ARR) benefits a ...[text shortened]... alistic notions?
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670890