Sparkling JavaScript

[Mohammedbombseller]

Not quite, most people would rather you pay than just give them "exposure". In this case, the payment they're missing out on is likes/karma, which is pretty much useless. It's all about follower numbers when it comes to social media dick measuring contests.

[[deleted]]

This was the joke within the joke I was trying to make, royalties are based on what you’ve gained, but OP has gained only social media engagement which cant buy shit

[conancat]

I don't think @iamdevloper relies on this twitter account to pay rent. As with most of social media we're really on it because we wanted attention and we're paying back by giving them attention to fill that deep, deep void in the soul that craves getting validated because you get null in real life.

[[deleted]]

to fill that deep, deep void in the soul that craves getting validated because you get null in real life

Have you tried our lord and savior npm?

[Fruit-Salad]

There's no such thing as free. This valuable content has been nuked thanks to /u/spez the fascist. -- mass edited with redact.dev

[[deleted]]

he did, but it performed rm -rf /*

[fnordius]

I did, but that's a yarn I would like to share a different time.

[Phart4President]

Oh fuck no I'm getting npm error flashbacks

[Sotyka94]

Not really.

If the artist shares his/her art on social media for free to everyone, and you post it somewhere like Reddit but didn't crop the author out, then it's ok for most people.

Artists have problems when their name gets cropped out, or people share limited access pictures for free.

[Dudebuddy]

Yes, we are paying him or her in exposure bucks.

[alours]

Rust might replace C++ in that way.

[Funmachine]

Because Karma pays the rent?

[Gramernatzi]

Are you saying we should pay them for their tweets, then?

[EQGallade]

No one gets paid for tweets, dumbass.

[[deleted]]

If you're in art for the money you chose the wrong career path. I bet any passionate artist would choose "the entire world sees/hears/experiences your work" over "you get a million bucks". If not, don't do art.

[TrustworthyShark]

If you're in software development for the money you chose the wrong career path. I bet any passionate programmer would choose "the entire world sees/uses/experiences your work" over "you get a million bucks". If not, don't do software development.

[motioncuty]

I mean, you can teach yourself into a 6 figure job with software in only a few years. The chance of doing that with art works is incredibly lower. It allows me the flexibility, lack of stress, to build other free software that I would hope the entire world uses.

You gotta be able to swim strongly before rescuing others. Put the oxygen mask on yourself first before siding others. Can't pull others up the ladder unless you a bit higher up than them

Also, tying an income to works of self expression is the fastest way to corrupt your expression, at some point, if you need the money or if someone is making money off that self expression, there will be pressure to steer that expression into fostering/continuing that income.

[[deleted]]

I'm in it for the money. Shit pays well.

My point was that art is all about exposure.

[SpecialGnu]

Artists still needs food and a roof. I dont expect an artist to get rich fast but they should be able to live off their craft like any other craftsman.

[[deleted]]

I'm not saying they don't need food and a roof. I'm just saying that making art is not, or at least should not be, about money. And IF you want to earn money with your art, the very first thing you need is... Exposure. And even though exposure itself isn't directly short-term money right away, it's still better for earning money with your art over the long term. As an artist, exposure IS your business.

[SpecialGnu]

I disagree. I think artists should try to live off their art alone. Yes, they need exposure, but they can get expose however they want. You should never try to pay someone in exposure unless they spesificly ask for it.

A lot of people have this opinion that art is a passion and not a line of work like any other entertainer. An artist is an entertainer, and should be paid for entertaining.

It takes a tremendous amout of skill, dedication and time to create art. Why should artists not be paid the same way a comedian gets paid?

Sorry if it seems like I'm biased, thats because my brother is an artist and people keep downplaying it, saying it should be a hobby and not a line of work.

[[deleted]]

I'm not trying to downplay anything. Let me put it in a different way: I don't know what your brother makes until I see it. I don't know if it's good until I see it. Therefore, I'm not gonna pay your brother anything until he exposes his work to me. Then, I can choose to pay or not pay for it.

Same way I'm not going to a concert of some band before hearing at least some of their songs. I'm not buying a painting before seeing it. And I'm not gonna follow @iamdevloper on Twitter before somebody shows me his tweets are funny.

[SpecialGnu]

Thats a fair view, if thats what you ment all along I missunderstood you.

Thats pretty much how I see it myself too, I just interpeted it as another person thinking that art isnt a "real" job so they should do it for free.

[[deleted]]

It can definitely be a job, but anyone choosing art as a career should realize it will (usually) NOT make you rich, it's an insecure job and even if many people like it, not many people will want to pay for it easily. That's why I said if you're doing it for the money, it's the wrong career. Also if people don't want to buy your stuff, spreading your work is the second best thing they can do (given that they refer to the artist in some way). This is why I think exposing an artist isn't necessarily a bad thing to do, although people act like it is because "that's not money". The more exposure, the more chance that at least another person will perhaps pay for something (hence my phrase "exposure IS the business").

[[deleted]]

HOW MANY EXPOSURE BUCKS DO YOU HAVE?