The de-valuization of art...

Greetings y'all! I know it's been quite a long time, but I didn't have too much to write about other than my recent bout of depression. But that's boring and who wants to read about that anyway? Just wait for the next record... ;-)

So I'm perusing the job listings at Craigslist, and I came across an ad for an establishment looking for original artwork: photography, painting, etc. They were quite descriptive in what they wanted... something chic, sophisticated, yet "night-life" like. While I was reading, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry... 1) They didn't want to pay for it. 2) Because the art will be displayed in a high traffic area of bar, they made the disclaimer that they wouldn't be responsible for any damage done to the art. 3) They said the art would be available for sale, so the potential to make money was there.

I'm sorry, am I missing something? You want people to display their original pieces of art which costs money to create, time and effort to produce, not pay for it, and then add the extra quagmire that it could potentially be damaged and you'll assume no liability for that? Who in their right mind would submit their art?

As for the "potential" to make money, that's just poppy-cock talk for "we want your stuff for free."

Let's look at the bigger picture, shall we?

Our culture as a whole defies a lot of "what we say we're about." We say we value and reward hard work, but in many cases (not all) we're not willing to pay for it. We say you can be anything you want to be - just as long as you know or blow the right people. We say we are free - but often times, because of a socioeconomic standing (poor vs. wealthy) our liberties are denied. We say we have justice - but when someone serves a sentence and paid their debt to society, they are marked with an "X" for the rest of their life and often cast away from reintegration into society.

In this case of the art, how come we're all willing to pay for gas at ExxonMobil that we all know is going towards another year of record profits, fueling (no pun intended) our dependence on foreign oil, perpetuating unneeded, unjustified wars, polluting the planet, but we're not willing to give to an artist for creating his art?

The above is just one of many analogies that could be made.

Regarding the art scenario specifically, why not offer something of value in exchange for the art? The "potential" is not of real value, and seriously... who's looking to buy art while drinking Bud Light on a Friday night?

I don't have the answers, nor do I claim to. Just thought I'd stir up some discussion. And think about how this translates into music and the ires of illegal downloading. Should music be free? How is an artist to be compensated? Art/Music costs money to create.

Thoughts?

In music news...

We're planning on heading into the studio in the Spring (hopefully) to record the follow up to "Where You Come From." Those are the tentative plans anyway.

We've been performing and subsequently ironing out the songs off of the latest EP "Everything Is Something Else" as a full band. Speaking of which, recording the EP was cathartic for me... I've been dying to do an acoustic record. However, these songs have taken on a fantastic new life with the full band, and I can only credit Fred, Anthony and Gerry for that. They fucking rule. (Ha! Didn't think I'd get through an entire blog post without swearing at least once, did ya?). Again, they fucking rule. My favorites, and I can't believe I'm actually saying this because I love them all, are "Seventy Letters" and "The Last One." Exciting stuff. You'll be sure to hear them on Friday 2.20.09 at The Warehouse in Hartford.

I've got more news to tell ya, but I'll save it for another post. I'll try to post more often now that I'm feeling a bit better.

Hope you're all having a wonderful recession! See, tax cuts work! Just like the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!

Seriously, I hope you're doing alright. We'll all pray that times will get better.

Peace, love, rock & roll...

-Seth