The debate "Should any artist of any age be considered an artist and be paid as long as their work isn't bad" was started by
May 5, 2015, 8:40 pm.
92 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 25 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Seraphim posted 1 argument, scooter6381 posted 1 argument, SalonY posted 1 argument, Hareed posted 1 argument, amS07 posted 1 argument, DiabolikIzzy posted 1 argument, Drakgo posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
libertarian_rebel posted 1 argument, jonatron5 posted 1 argument, Ematio posted 1 argument, ceedotrock posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
scooter6381, Seraphim, ufufugh, Zach_Hill, sphericdrake, Daph, ibrahim, Violet, DarkAngelAnarchist, Benzdick, skyfrancois_97, Turtle, ReadyToBegin, SalonY, KCave05, Najam1, haneen, Hareed, Namra_ta, amS07, football, DiabolikIzzy, udhavagupta29, Drakgo, officiallsse, thecommunistmanifesto and 66 visitors agree.
jonatron5, libertarian_rebel, AnkGanu, ailasorecarg, Ematio, ceedotrock, Frank and 18 visitors disagree.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
What people accept as art comes down to culture and values, it just happens. You can go ahead and call a blank page art, but don't expect many people to be lining up to see it.
I feel there should be no limits to art. Limitations water down creativity and originality.
Yes, an artist of any age should have the opportunity of getting paid for their art, but they shouldn't get paid BECAUSE they make art. If nobody buys the art, then the artist makes different art in hopes people will enjoy it.
Art is decided as art by the beholder. If I don't see your art as art, then that's my take on it. We shouldn't limit art too much, but there are clear limits to what art can and can't be, ir at least what the masses will be okay with.
Who are we to put a limitation on art. The moment we begin to put limitations on art, is the moment we loose our originality. Pop culture is a butcher of art, because it's about what media determines what is popular and society eats it up. They believe because it is advertised to a mob that segregates free thinkers.
Art has enough limitations, and with no offense, I don't need you to tell me my work is good for the many.
there should be a limitation on. what work they are doing though, if it's like painting, singing,etc. it's cool but nowadays society practically accepts everything as art so imagine if we are paying people to show nudity and or becomes prostitutes and etc. it's just plainly saying it would be good but there are a lot of loop holes.
Nothing can detain you from being an artist with the intense love and talent you have for music...and about getting paid pretty much depends upon the platform you are in as a singer or producer and it's obvious to have ups and downs in your carrier but you just gotta keep making progress as an artist. So...follow your dreams be the person u wanted to be.
Thats so true because money does make difference
Evil people will only approve of money being made in advocation of evil.
If one writes a book with words of inspiration they hate it and claim the work is worthless.
If one strips nude and covers their body in tattoos, the one born into wealth will applaud and even throw money at such an ally.
There are too many evil jealous haters with inherited money, too many wicked ones who have wealth they didnt and dont have to struggle for.
For some strange reason, they are willing to say or do anything to force the one born to an impoverished mother or father in poverty the entire life.
If one manages to battle out of the poverty situation, then the evil people will have one less person to mock, humiliate, or call a bum and beggar.
I was born rich, or I inherited money you stupid poor bum is just as effective as a nuclear weapon against a struggling man.
Unless the poor man produces some pornography, tattoos, or something evil, those who are born rich, inherited money will always move to keep the one in a position so they can continue mocking and humiliating the one born into a poor household.
Art can be produced with only words, if one has the proper talent.
Artists are not limited to creating paintings, sculptures, or music tracks.
The Canterbury tales are by an artist, who certainly never got paid the true value of his work in money before dying.
Ole Geoffrey Chaucer!
get paid as in selling their paintings
Money doesnt grow on trees although im sure u dont think that matters i can tell u most likely think all kids should get trophies for participation also dont ya?
art, beauty, humor, good, bad, etc. cannot be looked at objectively, therefore who decides whether someone work is that bad and qualifies for compensation?
Be paid for doing what?
Hmm No qus arises
so long as it isn't out of my pocket
They should of course have be allowed to be paid. But does someone have to pay for their work if they don't want it? No, involuntary commerce is wrong.
seraphim, i know and have seen plenty of people who would willing pay for the money they earn but a child must know that it is a good thing to have imagination
Sure, if you can find an employer who does not have a mindset believing that employees need to be at a certain age, which seriously is highly unlikely.