Until an artist develops their signature style that is easy to recognize, they are not significant and likely not making much money. Once they have achieved this elusive goal life does not get much better as this essay shows
Robert Beatty, a Lexington, Kentucky-based artist and musician, echoes this sentiment, mentioning several experiences when major corporations tried to strong-arm him into making work for less. “I can name so many companies who simply hired somebody to copy me when I said no to their measly budget,” he says, listing examples from fast-food conglomerates to major tech companies that publicly claim to champion creativity, yet have unashamedly exploited his work. He adds “I think at this point creative agencies just get me to sign NDAs about projects they never intend to hire me for so I won’t call them out when they poorly imitate my work.”
And all this is not even counting the effects of AI where the style can be poorly imitated and almost no cost. All of this converges into lack of incentive for artists to fully exercise their creative muscle and if they do, make their output publicly available. The only option left is for artists to hold paid viewings for their work with no ability for patrons to record or copy anything. If a big corporation wants them to do work for them - the same rules of engagement apply. The issue is that every artists would have to abide by the rules of engagement - a guild or union approach, for the community to have more power in negotiations with entities much bigger than them - even collectively. That seems to be quite an impossible goal to achieve.
Comments