Mailtda's non-commercial use clause, was: Re: [matilda] crisisof consensus

[Joe Morris]

>>I'm not convinced that a non-commercial clause is appropriate in the 
>>context of using Matilda as >>an art space

Why?

>>it rather begs the question of how and whether we expect our artists to 
>>actually make any >>money.

Do artists paint because they enjoy painting or because they want to make 
money out of it? The bands who come and put on DIY gigs do so because of 
their love for what they do, not because of some desire to make money. Why 
is that different? They still survive and could quite easily argue the 
poverty line, which was used last night.

If people want to be "professional" artists, then fine, but I don't think 
Matilda as the space it is now, especially because of how it came about, is 
a place where the facilitation of that should happen.

If artists want to make money, then they are more than free to take their 
paintings and sell them to people who want to buy them, but I don't see why 
the space has to compromise further to accommodate that.

>>Also, given that the LTT is a commercially driven type, a non-commercial 
>>clause would sound slightly hypocritical.

Unfortunately people have had to make a compromise on that in order to use 
the space, but I don't think that makes peoples opinions or our desires for 
the space any less consistent. LTT has a studio that is profit making. I 
wholly disagree with that on principle and always have. I have never said 
otherwise. However, in order to use Matilda and create what we are creating 
that is a compromise I am willing to make.

Just because LTT is there I don't think that suddenly creates a basis for 
having other commercial things in the space or somehow negates the 
anti-commercial argument.

Joe

_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters