This post brought to you by Roxane Gay®
Roxane Gay comes clean about her approval of dirty money over at HTML Giant. She forces me to ask similar questions of my own moral aversion to sponsorship dollars. Historically, when presented with the opportunity to accept money by way of advertising, sponsorship, etc. I’ve justified the decision by passing the dollars along to those who I feel it rightfully belongs to (authors, editors, etc.). I’ve never kept any for myself. But Gay makes me ask: why not?
For me, the decision comes down to a basic function of economics. Authors need time to write. Money buys time. The moral ambiguity part comes into play when an author is offered money before the author has something worth writing about. Then it becomes an issue of monetary motivation, which I think, kills the idea of art. <meta>Unless the intention of the art is to comment on the monetization of art. </meta>
Of course, this one-sided conversation of mine hinges on the highly unlikely problem of being offered sponsorship dollars enough to feel morally conflicted.
What are your thoughts on money and art?
Great post Caleb, enjoyed RGs essay at HTML too. I think if you work hard enough, and are clever enough, there’s a chance you can get paid. I wish there were more places that paid better. I did a quick search at Duotrope for markets that pay professional rates (that’s .05 a word). Guess how many? 110 in the entire USA. And that includes places like The New Yorker and The Paris Review, nearly impossible to get into. Or specialized markets like American Girl or Saturday Evening Post. Narrow it down? For horror? 11. Fantasy? 13. Mystery/crime? 6.
It’s tough out there.
(Like the new look, Caleb.)
Agreed with Richard on all points (how often does that happen?).