arttech.sol ◎

ON ART, MONEY & DOUBLE STANDARDS I’ve been thinking about how we talk about artists and money, particularly in this space. Why is it perfectly acceptable for an artist to sell their work to fund a new project, buy equipment, or build a studio, but somehow questionable when they say they need the money to pay rent, support their family, or simply get through a difficult time? In both situations, an artist is selling something they’ve created. The only difference is what they intend to do with the money. Yet somehow, one reason seems more acceptable than the other. I understand why people are uncomfortable with emotional manipulation. Nobody should feel guilty for not buying someone’s art, and nobody should be made to feel responsible for another person’s financial situation. But I think we’re sometimes too quick to confuse honesty with manipulation. Of course, there’s a stark difference between someone being honest about why a sale matters to them and someone deliberately making others feel guilty for not buying. Not every artist comes from the same circumstances. Some have stable jobs, savings, supportive families, or enough financial security to create without worrying about money. Others are trying to make art while figuring out how to pay their bills. Neither situation makes someone more or less of an artist, and neither should determine how much dignity they’re afforded. What makes this particularly interesting is how comfortable we’ve become with certain ways of selling art in here. Countdowns, exclusive access, limited releases, and the fear of missing out are all familiar to us. Some are perfectly legitimate ways of presenting and selling work, while others can cross a line. Yet sometimes we seem more comfortable with carefully constructed marketing than with an artist simply saying, “I could really use this sale.” And I find that strange. A collector can buy art hoping its value increases. A gallery can sell art to make a profit. A marketplace can earn fees from every transaction. Nobody expects any of them to pretend that money doesn’t matter. So why do we sometimes expect that from the person who actually made the art? I think there’s an unspoken expectation that artists should somehow be above financial concerns. That they should create purely for the love of it. And of course, many of us do create because we love it. But loving what you do doesn’t mean you don’t need to make a living. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. Wasn’t that part of what made NFTs exciting in the first place? The possibility that artists could reach collectors directly, earn from their work, and build something sustainable without relying entirely on traditional institutions? If that’s what we believed in, why should an artist feel embarrassed about admitting they need the income? I’m not suggesting that every personal hardship needs to become part of a sales pitch. And I certainly don’t believe collectors owe artists a purchase, regardless of their circumstances. But I also don’t think an artist should have to hide their reality just to be taken seriously. There’s room for honesty without obligation. There’s room for empathy without guilt. Maybe we could afford to be a little more understanding of the people behind the work. Some artists are creating from a place of comfort. Others are creating while trying to keep their lives together. And most of us probably find ourselves somewhere in between at different points in our lives. At the end of the day, wanting to make a living from your art shouldn’t be something you have to apologize for. And being honest about why that matters shouldn’t automatically make your intentions suspect. Thanks for reading. Be kind to each other.