Artist inspiration and artist influences. No biographies, dates or scholarly research here - this is a personal response to the work of musician Trent Reznor by Australian artist Fiona Morgan.

In these Creative Cauldron posts I talk about my influences. For the most part, these are visual artists. However, there are others. I mean, you wouldn't expect me to be one dimensional now would you? But would you expect me to be taking marketing notes from a musician? Maybe not, so let me show you why.

I think we are all more familiar with the idea of musicians making a living by making music, selling it and touring. Now that CD's are dead in the water and digital downloads of both the paid and illegal variety are rife, how do musicians make their money? And if musicians can and still do generate huge fan bases (collectors), go on sellout tours (exhibitions) and sell their work (originals) despite digital copies everywhere, why not visual artists? Admittedly, not every musician is able to do this, which is why I take notes from watching those that can.

I think it's easier for musicians to gain fans than visual artists, because music is so portable, social and consumable. But I think it's harder for the muso's to make a living from their art than a visual artist. It's easy to rip off a music file and rather tricky with a four foot square painting.  But so much of what these bands are doing can be translated to visual artists. This path is not for those wanting the traditional route to fame and fortune.

There are visual artists who thrive in this new online environment too. Natasha Wescoat, Hazel Dooney, and Val's Art Diary are the first three that influenced me when I realised that what every savvy young band is doing, visual artists can do too.

Before them I was watching the musicians. Especially this one who has always rallied against the big brother lockdown attitudes (snobbery) of record companies (art galleries) which are so last century.

You may have heard of Trent Reznor. He was partly responsible for the score for The Social Network which is doing the film circuit at the moment. Perhaps you know of Nine Inch Nails? If you don't follow electronic music and don't enjoy music that wallows in misery, probably not. I find his music unlistenable nowdays, though I was once a huge fan. I may have changed a bit in the last 20 years! Despite no longer enjoying the music, I still keep an eye on what this musician gets up to. His ideas on the changed landscape of music publishing, distribution, marketing and making living as a (recording) artist since the internet met digital music files are cutting edge, forward thinking, innovative, exploratory, uses social media and technology, includes the fans, you kinda getting the idea here?

The best concrete example of this forward thinking attitude that I know of can be seen in this Digg Dialogg interview. The part on marketing begins at the 10.45 mark.

The same content is also available in a written form here: http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?30,767183

After all, musicians are masters at getting rabid, screaming loyal fans. If visual artists could get a tenth of that fairy dust.....

More Trent Reznor links

Official site: http://www.nin.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Reznor

The Creative Cauldron series of posts explores and showcases the visual styles, techniques, attitudes, ideas, artists and paintings that have had the most impact on me. 

The rest of the series is accessible via the Creative Cauldron page. Have a meander if you please, and remember to check out my artworks on Flickr, and have an insider peek at life as an artist on Facebook.

I remember when photocopiers became available for public use. There seemed to suddenly be a big hoopla about copyright. Suddenly there were going to be hordes of people photocopying entire books and reselling them. Schoolkids had to 'watch out' or else they'd get caught photocopying sections of books for studying, homework and school projects. And then sense prevailed and the concept of fair use caught on. Who on earth would photocopy an entire book anyway? It would usually cost more than buying it new and the quality would be rubbish.

There were tapes and then CD's. You weren't meant to copy using these either, but everyone did. And as long as it was for your own personal use and you weren't out selling the copies you made, no one knew or cared. Often you'd copy some music from a friend, take it home, listen to it over and over, and end up at the concert, buy a T shirt and some other albums and hey presto, the band has a new fan.

And now we have the internet which is a giant copying machine on steroids. I admit, it is insanely easy to get hold of anything you want online. But the paranoia over copyright is coked up and suffering hysteria. It's as if a revelation has occurred. People copy other people's work. Shit!

Why are people so paranoid over people copying their work? I mean, I totally understand being pissed at someone for sneakily copying and then profiting from your work. These slimy unimaginative rock dwellers deserve to be tied down and eaten alive by rats. Get your own damn thing to sell. FFS get permission to use someone else's work to generate cash.

But why is so little distinction made between sharing a creative piece with friends as a fan, spreading your obvious enthusiasm and respect for the work and artist to other people who you think will also be appreciative, versus slyly making money from someone else's creativity? I don't get it. Once it's in the world, it'll be copied. Fact. But there is a universe between these two scenarios.

And it appears that I'm not alone in these views.

Creative Commons has been put together for creators who want a middle ground between all rights reserved copy-any-of-this-and-you-die full draconian copyright, and nothing at all. Think of Creative Commons as 'some rights reserved'. It is a licence based on copyright that allows works to be legally available for sharing, on certain conditions.

My conditions are: http://www.wherefishsing.com/contactprivacy.html

I hold all the commercial rights to any work I produce, including royalties. So if you want to make a buck from my creative output, contact me. We may be able to set up a deal. But if I say no and/or catch someone deviously profiteering from my work, I'll first set the fleas from a thousand camels on their eyeballs, and then have my lawyers suck the financial life from them.

Otherwise (a la NIN),

please post it on your blog,

share it with your friends,

publish it in your zine,

include it in your video,

etc.

And some final thoughts by Cory Doctorow:

"My fans’ tireless evangelism for my work doesn’t just sell books — it sells me.

This is why I give away digital copies of my books and make money on the printed editions: I’m not going to stop people from copying the electronic editions, so I might as well treat them as an enticement to buy the printed objects.

Most people who download the book don’t end up buying it, but they wouldn’t have bought it in any event, so I haven’t lost any sales, I’ve just won an audience. A tiny minority of downloaders treat the free ebook as a substitute for the printed book — those are the lost sales. But a much larger minority treat the ebook as an enticement to buy the printed book. They’re gained sales. As long as gained sales outnumber lost sales, I’m ahead of the game."

A Bunch of Useful Links

http://creativecommons.org/

http://creativecommons.org/choose/

http://commons.berneguerrero.com/2008/04/02/is-creative-commons-anti-copyright/

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3000_7-6357305-1.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-charging-for-internet

http://archive.icommons.org/articles/art-intercom-featuring-painter-joy-garnett

http://digg.com/dialogg/Trent_Reznor

http://craphound.com/content/download/

This work by Fiona Morgan of WhereFishSing.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.

And remember to check out my artworks on Flickr, and have an insider peek at my life as an artist on Facebook.