Monetary compensation for Art - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aberkok · 09-22-2009, 04:57 PM

Artists are not inherently entitled to monetary compensation for their Art

Here's an interesting article. It sparked a heated discussion on my Facebook profile and I was wondering what you folks think about it. Keep in mind I don't agree with everything in there, but there are some interesting ideas. I especially liked the "squeegee kid" analogy.

Artists are not inherently entitled to monetary compensation for theirArt - Music Think Tank

Quote:

“Artists should be compensated for their art.” is a phrase that often comes up in discussions on copyright. It is assumed that a) Artists are inherently entitled to monetary compensation for their Art, and b) copyright is a mechanism for this compensation.

I challenge both assumptions.

Of course, what people actually say is usually “Artists should be compensated for their work”. Below I’m going to distinguish between Art and Work, because confusing the two is exactly the problem.

a) Artists are inherently entitled to monetary compensation for their work.

I agree that artists are entitled to payment FOR THEIR WORK.

WORK is labor exchanged for money. Employer and worker negotiate a fee, the labor is performed, and the worker is paid. Many artists are workers: they are waiters, baristas, truck drivers. They should be compensated for their work, and they are, which is why they work.

Some artists perform a kind of skilled labor for money. This type of pre-negotiated labor is called a commission. Commissioned work is work, and artists are compensated for it, which is why artists take commissions.

But artists are not inherently entitled to monetary compensation FOR THEIR ART.

Art is a gift. An artist creates Art (not to be confused with skilled labor) on their own initiative. An artist “labors” in service of their vision, their Muse, the Art itself. The Muse alone is the Artist’s employer. It’s debatable whether the Artist can negotiate with their Muse before performing the labor — I certainly try to — but like most labor, terms are dictated by necessity. Just as economic necessity forces many workers into hard labor for low wages on their employer’s terms, so does suffering force many Artists into labor on the Muse’s terms. But unlike corporations and human employers, the Muse turns out to always have the artist’s best interests at heart. I’d much rather serve the Muse than an employer; but the Muse doesn’t negotiate a moneyed wage. Monetary compensation is not part of the deal.

The Muse “pays” me in Life. “Do this,” she says, “and you will Live. Turn away, and at best you will only survive.” I do have a choice: I can make the Art, or not. I accept the Muse’s terms. I perform the labor, and receive my “payment”: Life.

ART is negotiated with the MUSE. The “payment” is LIFE.
WORK is negotiated with an EMPLOYER. The payment is MONEY.

If artists want to be paid in MONEY, they should negotiate a fee before performing their work. That is the proper condition for payment. Or they can create work with no pre-negotiated payment, without demanding payment after the fact. That’s fine too. But to then demand payment after voluntarily working on your own terms — that is extortion.

Consider the Squeegee Man. He wipes windshields unbidden, then demands payment. He did the work; does he “deserve to be compensated”? Most would say no; if we wanted our windshields cleaned, we would negotiate this service in advance.

If I decide to sit behind a desk, take calls, devise flawed business plans, and lie, do I DESERVE to be compensated like a bank CEO? No. The bank CEO’s work was pre-negotiated. He gets $25 million in salary and bonuses because that was the deal BEFORE he sat down at his desk and did the work.

Does the bank CEO deserve his compensation? Well, most people are questioning that right now. I’m surprised it’s taken a massive financial crisis for that to happen, but at least folks are asking.

Since we’ve been in a massive artistic crisis for decades, maybe people have given up on asking whether the top .5% of artists deserve their monetary compensation. If I sing and prance around on stage, am I entitled to $110 million a year? It’s the same work Madonna does, and that’s what she makes. But Madonna arranged to be paid in advance of the singing and prancing, and performed it as work.

And if artists deserve to be compensated, then how much do they deserve? Isn’t art priceless? How do you determine how much it’s worth?

We could let the market decide. That could work… IF WE GET RID OF MONOPOLIES. The Free Market only works without monopolies. Information monopolies like copyright destroy that system. I’m all for allowing the Free Market to function, but it can only function without copyright.

Indeed, Madonna is not compensated as an artist; she is reaping profits from her information monopoly — that is, the copyright that restricts her Art. So if Madonna is your model, you aren’t rooting for artists; you are rooting for monopolists. If your mechanism for “compensating” artists requires them to become monopolists and to grow and position their monopolies as monopolists do, then you are championing monopolies, not Art.

Art is not a commodity, it is a gift. If you want to produce a commodity, negotiate its worth in advance. Art is made on the initiative of the artist. Otherwise, it’s commissioned work, which obviously compensates the worker. But the the commissioner is often a corporation or investment group, who will expect a monopolist’s return on their investment. So the pro-copyright argument is simply in favor of maintaining the oligarchy whose elites happen to be the main patrons of art in our age. It’s like supporting monarchies because kings and queens patronize artists.

This may be hard to hear, but: many artists who claim they just want to eat and pay rent are lying (perhaps to themselves). Most artists don’t want a living wage — they want to win the lottery. Suggest to most filmmakers and musicians that “success” is about $75,000 a year, and they’ll turn up their noses. You call that a jackpot? They’re only in it for the millions, baby. If that means working a day job and remaining obscure, so be it. Millions need to be poor so that one can be rich; they’re willing to do their time being poor, so that one day they can be rich at the expense of others. Their turn will come, they think.

I suggest playing a different game entirely, because the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math. But those kinds of artists want to play the lottery more than they want their art to reach people.

I do not mean to suggest that all artists have this attitude. There are also those who would be quite happy with a living wage; this is good, because that’s a much more realistic expectation for even a very talented artist. The problem is that our copyright discourse is dominated by the lottery attitude, such that when people say “Artists should be paid for the work” what they really mean is “All Art should be monopolized, so that some Artists can have a tiny chance of maybe getting rich one day.”

The best way for art to “compete” in a “free market” is to flow freely. The Internet makes it easy for an artist to give their work to an audience. It also makes it easy for audiences to return the gift. Giving is quite different from paying or being extorted. Money given is different from money coerced. It is a free transaction.

Not everyone will like a particular work of art. I don’t think people who dislike a work should be obligated to pay for it. Certainly works that offend, nauseate, or bore me, don’t inspire me to support their creators. But works that move and inspire me also move me to support their creators. I am touched by the Artist’s love, and want to offer something in return. Money is an obvious choice: the Artist can almost certainly use it. But it’s not always the right choice. I’m moved by many Beatles tunes, but I’m not inspired to send a check to Paul McCartney. He doesn’t need the money (not to mention he’s a big time monopolist). However, money is almost always an appropriate gift for a non-rich (read: typical) artist. It will be appreciated, and it’s not so personal as to be disturbing or threatening.

The Internet makes it very easy for fans to voluntarily send money to artists.

It’s really simple. Art competes with other art on the basis of quality. The Internet allows it to spread, to reach as many people as possible. Those who enjoy it have an easy mechanism to give back to the Artist if they are so moved. Not everyone will be so moved, nor should they be. Not everyone has to like everything. Not everything can touch us.

In conclusion:

Artists are NOT inherently entitled to monetary compensation for their Art. However we as a society can decide to support the Arts. The problem with this is that 95% of the Arts sucks. Most of us don’t want to be supporting artists that suck, nor allowing government committees to determine what is and is not worthy of support. My NYSCA grant rejection and its attendant comments have taught me never to trust government arts agencies. I’ll gladly accept funds from them, but I’m acutely aware that they aren’t reliably competent to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The best way society can support the Arts is to allow Art to spread, and to continue to encourage giving money to artists. That seems pretty natural to most people anyway, and it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s freedom.

Oh yeah and... anyone want to help me out with the "hide function?"

fresnelly · 09-22-2009, 05:42 PM

What, did an artist punch this guy in the face or something?

I wonder what inspired him to write this piece. 95% of art sucks?

This sounds more like a broad rant about government spending than anything else.

Everyone who calls himself an artist isn't being automatically handed money so I don't see what the big deal is. Obviously there is going to be disagreement as to whether public funds should support one project or another and no, arms length committees aren't always going to make pleasing choices, but what should we do? Completely abandon all subsidies?

I think that's cutting off one's nose to spite the face. Or throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Baraka_Guru · 09-22-2009, 07:14 PM

First, the hide function is not necessary, nor recommended, for articles of reasonable length quoted in the OP.

Second, unless I'm missing something, this guy doesn't understand basic business concepts.

An artist should be paid for both their work and their art, with two assumptions:

The artist has an agreement that indicates he or she will be paid for the time and other resources required to create the art. (Work)
The artist holds copyright or otherwise owns the rights--whether fully or in part--to the tangible or intangible manifestation or subsequent reproductions thereof. (Art)

It really is as simple as that.

This is how many businesses operate. Receiving compensation for a service performed is not new. Neither is receiving royalties or fees under licensing agreements. This doesn't only happen in the arts. Look around. These days, it's happening everywhere.

So, basically, an artist should receive some form compensation for their art if they have copyright (or some other agreement with a publisher, promoter, distributor, etc.) and the artwork is used in a commercial capacity.

See? Simple.

If I owned a company here in Canada that manufactured widgets, and a Chinese company expressed interest in making the same widgets available in the Chinese market, I could license out the brand, designs, and manufacturing process for a fee. For example, I could stipulate that 10% of the revenues from each unit is to be paid to my company as a part of the licensing arrangement.

This would be my company being compensated for what it had the rights to: a brand, design, and manufacturing process. This is how the "products and services" in the arts should work.

It all comes down to whether or not the artist remains the proprietor or part owner of the artwork.

Charlatan · 09-22-2009, 07:33 PM

The issue here stems, as I see it, from the fact that most art falls into the category of intellectual property. In other words, it isn't usually something as tangible as a manufactured good. We are talking about ideas, concepts, things that can be digitally reproduced with little difference from the original.

An artist should be compensated for both their art and their work.

Most of the payment for art (as opposed to work) has been managed through the licensing of copyright. If you wish to play a song on your radio station, you pay a license fee. If you want to air a television program on your channel, you pay a license fee. When you purchase a CD of music or a DVD of a film, you are in effect, playing a license fee (though we don't really call it that) to play that music under certain conditions. For example you are not permitted to do public performances of the CD or the DVD. They are mean for personal use.

The issue is that as our world has become increasingly digitized, it has become increasingly easy to break copyright. The easier it has become, the more that people have viewed this breaking of copyright as a victimless crime.

The knee-jerk reaction of the industry has been to clamp down on those that break copyright (filesharers, mashup artists, etc.). In the past, a lot of this was covered under fair use agreements or through hidden payments on blank media (cassette tapes carry an additional charge that is dispersed via Collection Societies to various licensees -- i.e. artists). It has been suggested that perhaps iPods should also carry this additional charge.

Regardless, it's my opinion that copyright is damaged or at least it is being used as a blunt instrument when something more surgical is required. There have been some attempts such as Creative Commons that offer one way forward. It will be interesting to see where things go over the next few years. There is a lot at stake over this issue.

Kadin · 03-13-2010, 07:54 AM

I'm not big on the whole sense of entitlement, whether for "work" or "art." The simple act of working on something doesn't mean that anyone -- or the world in general -- owes you payment for it. Your labor, whether you're a painter or a sculptor or a plumber, is only worth whatever someone else is willing to pay you for it. If nobody is willing to pay you for your labor, you have a hobby, not a job.

There's nothing wrong with having hobbies (I have many!), and there's no reason why someone's hobbies are inherently less "professional" (in the sense of being very good at their craft) than their day job. It just means that there's no buyer for their work at present.

In many cases I think it's easier to produce good art as a hobby than when trying to support yourself. I know a lot of people who have given up their artistic vision or goals in order to try and commercialize their art, and they end up spending less time overall doing what they actually love than if they just got a 9-5 and did their art as a hobby, without regard to its commercial viability.

As to the issue of copyright, I tend to believe that the current system is hugely anachronistic and that people should be paid more on a labor / work-for-hire basis and less on a royalties one (which is sort of what the OP's quote is getting at) but I'm not as militant about it as that guy is. I'd like to see copyright cut back to the life of the author at the very longest, and perhaps shorter than that -- the purpose of copyright isn't to provide content creators with a living or an income stream, it's just to encourage the creation of new works. If people will keep creating in the absence of copyright, then there's no need for copyright.

Idyllic · 03-18-2010, 06:36 AM

Quote:

The problem with this is that 95% of the Arts sucks. Most of us don’t want to be supporting artists that suck, nor allowing government committees to determine what is and is not worthy of support. My NYSCA grant rejection and its attendant comments have taught me never to trust government arts agencies. I’ll gladly accept funds from them, but I’m acutely aware that they aren’t reliably competent to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Sounds like a disgruntled "artist" whose work wasn't worth paying for, at least not to the New York State Council on the Arts. It's a real shame for him to twist the entire concept of true art into something corporate. Sounds like his art has either not matured, is not original enough, or just not ready to be appreciated by the Council, and boy is he angry about that.

I guess if I were anticipating a committee to like my work so much that they would give me a grant to continue making it, and they didn't, I'd be angry to. It's a good thing everybody who buys a lottery ticket doesn't have his attitude, the lottery would be broke. Isn't that basically what he did, made the art(bought the ticket), entered the ticket(tried to win a grant), in a lottery(NYSCA), he lost, this time anyway.

However, if he is truly the artist he says artists' should be then he should not have been expecting money from strangers anyway, especially without first knowing what they wanted before attempting to receive said payment, not just offer up something he artistically created and expect them to like it and commission him for it, then gets so pissed when they say, oh, no thanks.

It just sounds like his day job isn't paying the bills. Based on his rant he sounds awful hungry to me, kinda like a starving artist. I have a squeegee he can borrow.

boink · 03-25-2010, 08:27 PM

I'm an artist. I don't expect payment for anything unless I meet someone who wants the item I make, the art object. I may be willing to sell the object or not.
I spose if I were to sell something I made (which I have) it'd be up to me to negotiate terms of sale.

I don't see just giving money to 'an artist' just because they make art. to me it's just a matter of selling objects or not. or I spose selling groups of words if your a writer (which is of course an art) or whatever art an artist happens to make.

in the case of public art...well..I've also worked on alot of stuff that was paid for as 1% for the arts on a public works project. in the form of architectural elements (metalwork-sculpture actually) some items were practical elements (like a gate designed by an artist) or decoration. public art often makes use of the industrial arts and employs alot of non-artists, generates further economic activity like steel sales, welding shops, truckers, painters ( I mean like industrial painting not tormented lone oil painters) engineers etc. all sorts of work-a-day joes just trying to earn a living.

can anyone define art ? I've tried and I can't narrow it down much more than to say it's human communication. words, images, movement (dance), sounds, objects...a person using whatever she/he can to communicate an idea or evoke an emotion.

kramus · 03-26-2010, 06:58 AM

YouTube - Harlan Ellison -- Pay the Writer

Quote:

Originally Posted by boink

can anyone define art ? I've tried and I can't narrow it down much more than to say it's human communication. words, images, movement (dance), sounds, objects...a person using whatever she/he can to communicate an idea or evoke an emotion.

I posted this somewhere in TFP, but it is easier to find it in my blog, so here you go - my 2 cents What is Art? | Mark Johnson Fine Art

Pay the artist. But make sure there is a contract first. Or go with reasonable expectation - if you stop and watch a busker then you ought to put something into the hat.

Art is an integral part of our civilization. Everything we see, touch, wear, use has been run through an aesthetic sensibility as well as a practical one. That added value makes life contain more than a grey sameness full of the dull sounds of footsteps as people carry burdens. That added value is appreciated by paying a premium or a markup in the cost of things. Dyed fabric with cut and style costs more than burlap wrapped around you and tied on with string. The artist gets their share from the person who produces goods and services that are attractive as well as practical.

The rant in the OP is trash. Copyright is reasonable. Sort of like paying a toll for pleasure taken in something the way you pay a toll to use a bridge or highway instead of driving around obstacles and through rambling country roads.

Baraka_Guru · 03-26-2010, 07:07 AM

Harlan Ellison is my new hero. From what I just read about him, he's normally quite abrasive, but sometimes it's good to have that sort of thing on your side.

Charlatan · 03-26-2010, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadin

I'm not big on the whole sense of entitlement, whether for "work" or "art." The simple act of working on something doesn't mean that anyone -- or the world in general -- owes you payment for it. Your labor, whether you're a painter or a sculptor or a plumber, is only worth whatever someone else is willing to pay you for it. If nobody is willing to pay you for your labor, you have a hobby, not a job.

There's nothing wrong with having hobbies (I have many!), and there's no reason why someone's hobbies are inherently less "professional" (in the sense of being very good at their craft) than their day job. It just means that there's no buyer for their work at present.

In many cases I think it's easier to produce good art as a hobby than when trying to support yourself. I know a lot of people who have given up their artistic vision or goals in order to try and commercialize their art, and they end up spending less time overall doing what they actually love than if they just got a 9-5 and did their art as a hobby, without regard to its commercial viability.

As to the issue of copyright, I tend to believe that the current system is hugely anachronistic and that people should be paid more on a labor / work-for-hire basis and less on a royalties one (which is sort of what the OP's quote is getting at) but I'm not as militant about it as that guy is. I'd like to see copyright cut back to the life of the author at the very longest, and perhaps shorter than that -- the purpose of copyright isn't to provide content creators with a living or an income stream, it's just to encourage the creation of new works. If people will keep creating in the absence of copyright, then there's no need for copyright.

Sense of entitlement? I am not sure you have that right.

If I am a musician and I've written a song, should you be allowed to just play my song without compensating me? If I perform this song, should I not get paid for my performance?

I can agree that copyright, as I said above, is not working so well.

I don't agree that copyright is just there to encourage new works. I see it closer in spirit to patent laws. It protects your IP so that you can ensure compensation for your work and prevent theft of your IP. I do agree that we should revert to the originally shorter terms of copyright. Public domain is getting short shrift.

I would suggest that in the age of pastiche and remixing, we should be looking at something closer to creative commons which allows free non-commercial use of copyrighted materials.

09-22-2009, 05:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto	What, did an artist punch this guy in the face or something? I wonder what inspired him to write this piece. 95% of art sucks? This sounds more like a broad rant about government spending than anything else. Everyone who calls himself an artist isn't being automatically handed money so I don't see what the big deal is. Obviously there is going to be disagreement as to whether public funds should support one project or another and no, arms length committees aren't always going to make pleasing choices, but what should we do? Completely abandon all subsidies? I think that's cutting off one's nose to spite the face. Or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. __________________ Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

09-22-2009, 07:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	First, the hide function is not necessary, nor recommended, for articles of reasonable length quoted in the OP. Second, unless I'm missing something, this guy doesn't understand basic business concepts. An artist should be paid for both their work and their art, with two assumptions: The artist has an agreement that indicates he or she will be paid for the time and other resources required to create the art. (Work) The artist holds copyright or otherwise owns the rights--whether fully or in part--to the tangible or intangible manifestation or subsequent reproductions thereof. (Art) It really is as simple as that. This is how many businesses operate. Receiving compensation for a service performed is not new. Neither is receiving royalties or fees under licensing agreements. This doesn't only happen in the arts. Look around. These days, it's happening everywhere. So, basically, an artist should receive some form compensation for their art if they have copyright (or some other agreement with a publisher, promoter, distributor, etc.) and the artwork is used in a commercial capacity. See? Simple. If I owned a company here in Canada that manufactured widgets, and a Chinese company expressed interest in making the same widgets available in the Chinese market, I could license out the brand, designs, and manufacturing process for a fee. For example, I could stipulate that 10% of the revenues from each unit is to be paid to my company as a part of the licensing arrangement. This would be my company being compensated for what it had the rights to: a brand, design, and manufacturing process. This is how the "products and services" in the arts should work. It all comes down to whether or not the artist remains the proprietor or part owner of the artwork. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-22-2009 at 07:19 PM..

09-22-2009, 07:33 PM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The issue here stems, as I see it, from the fact that most art falls into the category of intellectual property. In other words, it isn't usually something as tangible as a manufactured good. We are talking about ideas, concepts, things that can be digitally reproduced with little difference from the original. An artist should be compensated for both their art and their work. Most of the payment for art (as opposed to work) has been managed through the licensing of copyright. If you wish to play a song on your radio station, you pay a license fee. If you want to air a television program on your channel, you pay a license fee. When you purchase a CD of music or a DVD of a film, you are in effect, playing a license fee (though we don't really call it that) to play that music under certain conditions. For example you are not permitted to do public performances of the CD or the DVD. They are mean for personal use. The issue is that as our world has become increasingly digitized, it has become increasingly easy to break copyright. The easier it has become, the more that people have viewed this breaking of copyright as a victimless crime. The knee-jerk reaction of the industry has been to clamp down on those that break copyright (filesharers, mashup artists, etc.). In the past, a lot of this was covered under fair use agreements or through hidden payments on blank media (cassette tapes carry an additional charge that is dispersed via Collection Societies to various licensees -- i.e. artists). It has been suggested that perhaps iPods should also carry this additional charge. Regardless, it's my opinion that copyright is damaged or at least it is being used as a blunt instrument when something more surgical is required. There have been some attempts such as Creative Commons that offer one way forward. It will be interesting to see where things go over the next few years. There is a lot at stake over this issue. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-26-2010, 07:07 AM	#9 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Harlan Ellison is my new hero. From what I just read about him, he's normally quite abrasive, but sometimes it's good to have that sort of thing on your side. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

03-13-2010, 07:54 AM	#5 (permalink)
Kadin Upright Location: Virginia	I'm not big on the whole sense of entitlement, whether for "work" or "art." The simple act of working on something doesn't mean that anyone -- or the world in general -- owes you payment for it. Your labor, whether you're a painter or a sculptor or a plumber, is only worth whatever someone else is willing to pay you for it. If nobody is willing to pay you for your labor, you have a hobby, not a job. There's nothing wrong with having hobbies (I have many!), and there's no reason why someone's hobbies are inherently less "professional" (in the sense of being very good at their craft) than their day job. It just means that there's no buyer for their work at present. In many cases I think it's easier to produce good art as a hobby than when trying to support yourself. I know a lot of people who have given up their artistic vision or goals in order to try and commercialize their art, and they end up spending less time overall doing what they actually love than if they just got a 9-5 and did their art as a hobby, without regard to its commercial viability. As to the issue of copyright, I tend to believe that the current system is hugely anachronistic and that people should be paid more on a labor / work-for-hire basis and less on a royalties one (which is sort of what the OP's quote is getting at) but I'm not as militant about it as that guy is. I'd like to see copyright cut back to the life of the author at the very longest, and perhaps shorter than that -- the purpose of copyright isn't to provide content creators with a living or an income stream, it's just to encourage the creation of new works. If people will keep creating in the absence of copyright, then there's no need for copyright.

03-25-2010, 08:27 PM	#7 (permalink)
boink Addict Location: Seattle	I'm an artist. I don't expect payment for anything unless I meet someone who wants the item I make, the art object. I may be willing to sell the object or not. I spose if I were to sell something I made (which I have) it'd be up to me to negotiate terms of sale. I don't see just giving money to 'an artist' just because they make art. to me it's just a matter of selling objects or not. or I spose selling groups of words if your a writer (which is of course an art) or whatever art an artist happens to make. in the case of public art...well..I've also worked on alot of stuff that was paid for as 1% for the arts on a public works project. in the form of architectural elements (metalwork-sculpture actually) some items were practical elements (like a gate designed by an artist) or decoration. public art often makes use of the industrial arts and employs alot of non-artists, generates further economic activity like steel sales, welding shops, truckers, painters ( I mean like industrial painting not tormented lone oil painters) engineers etc. all sorts of work-a-day joes just trying to earn a living. can anyone define art ? I've tried and I can't narrow it down much more than to say it's human communication. words, images, movement (dance), sounds, objects...a person using whatever she/he can to communicate an idea or evoke an emotion.