Re: The Nature Conservancy's Digital Photography Contest

[Frederick H Hecker <fhecker@xxxxxxxxxx>]

But by every measure used in our culture, the only value that counts is money.

One must have enough money for necessities: food, clean water, shelter, health care.

Perhaps you can get that necessary "nut" by exchanging your art, your craft, your time, your body, your birthright. Or perhaps you can't.

If you can't, survival itself will be difficult in any culture.

If you can satisfy your basic needs, a fixation on accumulating and spending more money is called "materialism".

Materialists look at art and ask "What's it worth?"

Perhaps a more valuable question is "How does this art affect me?"

If raising children is so valuable why don't the parents who stay home and don't work i eive the benefits of working?

I'm not a parent, but it seems to me the value of raising children is personal satisfaction, potential care in old age or infirmity, and genetic continuity.

The world doesn't owe you any of  these values - they are the result of personal choice and action, so kids don't generally come with a paycheck.

Y'know, it's really great that so many people here affirm the emotional value of their imagery and other creative work.  And it might be just wonderful if they could get insurance against the loss of that work on the basis of its emotional value to them.

Do you think that insurance money can compensate for emotional loss?

If you give your work away you peg its value at the price you gave it away for.

If you get satisfaction from giving your art freely, you have ey.

 If you refuse to acknowledge that equation, I hope you never need a car, a roof over your head, health care, clothing, heat, a computer, food, education - need I go on?

If you can't afford to give your art freely, and no one wants to pay your asking price, perhaps you should be doing something else.