top subject, I don’t know where to leave my comment because it’s transversal trough your articles.

I am so glad you arrived at the basic idea that an artist is someone who lives things differently, thus s/he cannot conform with business rules.

But you also present artists competing over art-consumers revenues, which is bad news. Good news is that business people may start closing deals that are just beautiful and exalting for their soul. Cool, I’ll stick around to see it!!!

Vincent I agree that artists feel ackward with (hate) business. That’s why they hire agents to do the nasty job. Or they get married, like Rembrandt, putting love in the middle so that greed stays masked.

To monetize, you can count only on agent-driven art. Art that is artist-driven is highly impredictable and has some very unstable dynamics.

Quality is definitely easier to monetize and license than the representations that have no inbuilt pricing criteria. I don’t know how much I would like to pay for a 5minute song with a piano, a bass, a flute, no idea how much a tree or Dori sitting in the middle of an exhibition costs.

If I had money, I would buy a strong marketing, probably a dead artist (whose marketing is passed on to pros) or an agent-driven one.

If I had time I would buy something I like, and If I were also mature enough (as an audience) I would have had the opportunity to support a seed.

So education, Vincent, is effectively a good solution for the sustainability (trendy word, haha) of art.

Fidji, coming from a country where orthodox priests are public servants, I am very positive of the idea or replacing some of them with artists (who will address the spiritualism of people who don’t express themselves through religion). This would democratize the luxury of art, improve social welfare, and help stressed artists concentrate in their art rather than in business.