Why would someone pay $500.00 for a trash-bin or $200.00 for a toilet brush? [1] Believe it or not, for those of us in the creative industries, there’s a lesson in the answer.
In the article titled “It Is Okay for Artists to Make Money…No, Really, It’s Okay” [1] associate professor Robert D. Austin examines the apparent conflict between artistic and commercial objectives within creative companies.
The PDF link [1] is the entire thirty-one page paper.
The html link [2] contains the Executive Summary and Abstract.
Some quotes to pique your interest:
“The Vipp example attracted us, as researchers, because the company sells products in categories that consumers have traditionally valued functionally, not aesthetically. Most people mostly care about how well a trashcan or toilet brush does its job. That has determined how much people will pay for one: how well it works. But not these trashcans and toilet brushes. There’s no way functionality alone can justify their prices. People must be buying something else—something worth a lot.” [1]
“There are three fallacies, often implicit, about relationships between art and commerce: (1) art is a luxury and an indulgence, (2) art is clearly distinguishable from “non-art,” and (3) commerce dominates and corrupts art, and subverts its purpose.”[2]
“…the interests of art, artists, and business can be best served if more commerce enters into the world of art, not less.”[2]
Links:
(1) http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-128.pdf
(2) http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6193.html
Related Photography Workshops:
