- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Michael Palma answered a question that many artists – whether they are musicians or magicians- are forced to wrestle with: Should artists agree to work for “exposure” and no money? Michael’s answer was a firm no. Michael would not agree to do work for exposure because the promises of connection making and meeting potential clients rarely came true. As a musician myself, I have been presented with working for free, but usually I am paid for my performances. However, my experience most likely does not represent the vast array of artists as I am not a full-time musician and still rely on my parents. The second part of Michael’s answer gave nuance to his first answer. Michael said he only works for free if it is a job that he has an interest in. Therefore, he isn’t working for exposure, he’s working for himself. For example, while he wouldn’t work a wedding for free, he would be interested in a job where he is photographing nature and has creative control.
Michael was spot-on in his answer. Artists do jobs that require as much work as any other job, and much more intellectual and creative power than most. It makes little sense why people would expect artists to work for free. Especially considering that freelance work is generally not the most lucrative profession, it is wrong to attempt to exploit artists in this way. Before a client offers an artist work without pay, they should ask themselves if they would offer an equivalent deal to a worker in another industry.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
