Introit

Art is the noblest of human creations, as it is out of it that our understanding and enjoyment of the life that has been granted to us comes from. Without art, our existence would be arid and all scientific and technological achievements would only serve to prolong an existence devoid of meaning.

In this era in which the development of artificial intelligence calls into question our ability, as human beings, to continue to contribute positively to technological development and the number of possible human work occupations appears to be going to get greatly reduced, artistic creation and its enjoyment appear as important ways of affirming human identity.

Some of the most beautiful artistic creation arises from the human need to free oneself, mentally, from everyday social and economic difficulties and from extreme states of mind arising from the deepest recesses of human suffering, such as misery, hunger, disease and survival from war.

Objective

Create a support fund for authors in disadvantaged situations, whether for economic, social, political or geographical reasons, to help them, as much as possible, to overcome the difficulties that prevent them from creating their art, thus promoting greater autonomy for them to free up the time and means necessary to dedicate themselves to their creations, which, ultimately, will benefit all of us.

Compile a White Paper with all the ideas on this topic that will be used as a reference for the creation of the respective community, NGO, or whatever institutional and collaborative form is concluded, in the end, to be the best to lead this process.

( Image: from istockphoto, edited by hefestus )

Foreword:
As a promoter of this reflection leading to a document that points the way to strengthen the support of the artistic community in steemit, I am in no way hoisting myself to any part in the implementation or management of whatever turns out of this document. The objective of the creation of this paper is simple: to point the way. Also, I know I am not perfect and no project or idea will ever please everybody. I also know that new ideas tend to challenge and disturb settled models and interests. In no way did I have the intention to ignore any of the presently working projects aiming at supporting plastic artists, writers, musicians, photographers or any others. For that reason, I was quite surprised at some negative reactions that, not only questioned my good intentions, but also tried to explore totally unrelated facts about my activity in order to accuse me of launching this idea as some kind of manouver into a situation from where I could take profit. I don't take those objections as important, as they have absolutely no validity. I still count with everybody's interest, opinion and envolvement in this discussion, which is free for all and very much public. Also, I can't mention everybody: I don't know everybody and the system doesn't allow me to call more than seven users into a post, so, as I was using my own criteria and no other, it was what it was and still, I had no intention of leaving anybody out of the conversation. My expectation was that whoever was interested would call more people in. I expect this to be clear by now and that everybody has already understood that this White Paper intends to provide ideas to reinforce all communities and not to exclude, ignore or ostracize anyone.

First Update

This tries to sum up the post and comments that have been made in the sphere of this discussion and I will thank everybody that feels that any of their ideas have been forgotten, bring it to my attention and deeply apologize for not tagging all the people involved in the discussion inside this post. I will use the comment space in order to call @everyone back here to read this review. I hope this doesn't hurt any sensitivities.

1- Present reality

1.a) Creators, in steemit seem to tend to gravitate to, either specific communities related to the kind of work they do, like Art & Artists, Freewriters, Dream Steem, Boylikegirl Club, Knackforbuzz and others, or to linguistic or national based communities like Venezolanos Steem, Deutsche Unplugged, Comunidad Latina, Italy, Ukraine on Steem, Steem Japan, and numerous others. We can also observe a movement of users with no specifically creative intentions or even totally uninteresting contributions that simply jump around to whatever community they think will reward their directed attempt to cash in on the first mindless post they can produce. Some huge communities also exist where you can't even follow the feed and where the content is so mixed that it's mindboggling, and there, you can also find some creators that try to thrive, possibly through the strength in numbers, although I suspect that they just don't feel at home in other places. There is also an important number of users that join no communities, blog their work and don't mind about joining communities and publishing in them.

1.b) Individualism, egocentrism and not caring about community involvement are rampant, which can be a result of a number of factors, which have been argued not only in this discussion, but also elsewhere on steemit, which go from people not having enough time in their lives to both create and enjoy other's creations; to, being limited by platform rules in what regards to using their votes, or not understanding the rules at all; being confronted with feeds that do not attract interaction and where it becomes increasingly difficult to stand out; giving preference to use their online time in other, more graphically atractive platforms; not feeling involved in the communities they adhere to; among others.

hive-120695 has stated:
Let me tell you Perplexity that the community is fought from day number one and receives no support from Steemit and most artists aren't investing in promoting themselves or building something with like minded which can easily be done on Steemit by posting and commenting.

This seems to constitute the sum up of the historical experience of hive-120695 that, obviously feels frustrated about her efforts not being reflected in the results she expected. The kind of personal experiences that lead to such opinions tend to come hand in hand with a feeling of increasing isolation that generates negative self fulfilling prophecies and depreciation towards the involvement of others that the individual considers to not put enough effort towards objectives that are felt by said subject to be paramount. In this case, thought should be given to the fact that not all people share the same objectives and use their time and resources in the way they consider appropriate for themselves, and to try and force anyone into our own utopic movement is usually a failed proposal and that, eventually, generates a cycle of further isolation by way of reinforcing divisiveness and mutual accusations.

hive-120695 proceeds:

Since again those who work hard for unnoticed artists on Steemit are left out (@ joslud and @ wakeupkitty the art promoters) and next @ tezzmax and @ almaguer, it does't feel good to be abused and take part in something, join someone who steals ideas and next ignores us by asking those who never showed any interest or worse make a fool out of us, for advice how to run reign artists.

I realise that this was a direct criticism of the White Paper initiative, but I cannot see it in any other light than the one explored in the previous paragraph. No one was excluded from discussion, neither there is any kind of abuse or stealing of ideas, as there is no intention to replicate or replace any existing models of support of the artistic community or anything else than the interest in discussing a wider way to provide this support. This statement also shows the lack of will to look for real involvement of other stakeholders, by excluding them, a priori, from the debate under the unacceptable idea that if you have never been involved, your opinion is not valid. This kind of posture, in an open and totally transparent community like steemit is divisive, ureasonable and utterly senseless, as it prevents the creation of a larger, stronger and more supportive coalition.

hive-120695 then states:

Making them depedent (artists) on 1 person and blindly follow for a living is dangerous and not what the community stands for. We want artists to be able to show their works and rely on their uniqueness.

Which is an important and valid stance, (although it corresponds to an unvalid critic to the author of the White Paper proposal, which has absolutely no intention to make anyone dependent on him), on the other hand, hive-120265, goes on to say:

In short
I rather support an artist who does deserve it straight out of my pocket (which I did several times by buying paintings , materials, by giving a platform, direct aid information, there are no millions needed for that only a handful of honest artlovers without a price tag and a bit of support.

Which can be considered a total contradiction or, (and I don't want to think that to be the case), the statement that it is not ok for an artist to be totally dependent on a single person, unless that person is hive-120695. That, in my country, is called hubris, and results from the idea that someone considers himself, his own projects and actions legitimized just by his own idea that he is right and all the others are wrong or trying to undermine their efforts. I expect hive-120695 changes posture after realising that there is absolutely no positive outcome in persisting in ideas that do not have a reflection in reality and accepts this discussion as a positive movement towards potencializing her own project and not an attempt to take her place or that of any of the others that invest their time and resources in furthering the development of creator communities.

1.c) Steemit is not widely known among the wider world population as a place for creators to develop their projects and, as a social network, is not among the most popular. Determining the reasons for this diverges from the objectives of this paper, so, I won't dwelve into the discussion of them, but their effect is clear: there is an absolute need to inform the wider public about steemit and to publicize the idea that anyone who is looking for a thriving community of art creators can find it here. The need for the promotion of steemit on the outside is absolutely evident and critical. Any project that comes out of this White Paper needs to consider that steemit will attract the kind of people that the external promotion aims for, so, an effort needs to be made to attract interested, participating parties instead of parasites that limit themselves to reap whatever rewards they can take out of meaningless participation.

1.d) Although brave and meritorious, all visible efforts to support or dinamize creator communities in steemit are based on individual efforts, not always corresponded by the target population. As for the reasons, apart from the ones already analised above, further research is needed.

hive-120695 wrote:

The community Tales & Stories always supported tale and story writers with hundreds of Steem, no members but strangers, and promoted Dream Steem as the place to post stories.
SCB Monkey Business - the community collecting/posting topics started also because of a lack of a chat option and is fought abandoned because Steem reigns with selfish.
Art & Artists - the youngest project - the community did not receive any support the same for the two others.

All three grow SP by 1 person and the same counts for the rewards.
On the other side stands the rest, the mass of Steemit. Plenty of their votes left unused but never one for those communities/posts no matter what is posted or how hard is worked to promote Steemit as well.

Justifying the idea that support projects are currently being handled as personal projects and not group efforts, which make, for one side, a frustrating endeavor, and, for the other, an increasingly difficult climate to develop the involvement of others into supportive communities that feel connected by mutual, interconnected objectives and ideals. The singularization of the effort corresponds to a singularization of control and that process tends to keep people that would possibly be interested in volunteering their effort on the outside of the sphere of decision, distancing them from participation and making them end up giving up on helping altogether. This point reflects the idea of taxation without representation, and, logically, predicts that any effort to develop a wider support structure has to be based on team work and group participation and representation in decisions.

1.e) Even though costs in time and materials are high and intense involvement in steemit brings along some problems with family and friends, rewards for people who invest themselves in the participation in steemit communities, namely art creators, are very small and far apart, which makes bad financial situations worse and generates great difficulties in justifying to friends and family the reason for such an investment of time and resources for such insignificant rewards.

tezzmax wrote:

Personally, I have come to the realization and agreement that just as it is in the physical space that only those who are actually buoyant financially and without any financial worries get to appreciate art well even with their hard earned money and so it is on platforms such as these, people tend to see the pieces and say to themselves and the artists that the pieces are beautiful but they really can't put their money on it. I can't count how many times I've personally been attacked for withdrawing steem or powering down...

I buy art materials every now and then, there are so much reoccurring costs that goes into play and this is one of the reasons why some friends I've invited in the past find it really difficult to cope around here. Like @ joslud said in his comment, if we are looking at another platform for artists outside steemit maybe that could work and if it would be on steemit, then there is so much to be done!

This points towards the necessity to find ways to properly reward art creators for their effort and investment and to the need to create a frame of mind that respects the right of those that put in their time and effort to be able to withdraw the results of their work without being bullied and shamed for deciding to use the few coins they make as they see fit. If effort is put in, no one should be entitled to criticize others for taking their rewards out.

1.f) There is an immense number of creators that have huge potential, yet live under circumstances that don't allow them the opportunities that we take for granted in free, democratic, affluent societies in Europe, North America, Australia and elsewhere where there are little limitations to the expression of ideas, access to mass media and possibilities to finance one's projects if they prove to be promising.

weisser-rabe wrote:

Like you, I saw the endless possibilities for talented but underestimated authors. I saw the link between online presence and real life effects. I had such big ideas...
You know one of them. The Dream Steem book project, with which I wanted to make ‘our’ authors accessible to a broad offline readership. And I want to.

I have learnt from writers in Venezuela that it is almost impossible to get published there unless you have some government protection. I've learnt from Nigerian and Indonesian friends that hunger is not a good muse, that you can't really be creative under pressure and that art needs a relaxed space to grow. I've learnt from people that they don't necessarily realise how good they actually are at writing, drawing, designing...

pedrobrito2004 wrote:

You bring up an interesting topic, I was particularly drawn to the reference that hunger is not a good muse (at least for most people). I was reminded of the old theory of the ‘Maslow pyramid’ (or hierarchy of human needs). In which it was indicated that each higher level of the pyramid depended on satisfying (at least to a sufficient extent) the conditions of the lower levels

I admit that there are historical cases of musicians, writers, painters, and other artists, who were able to create impressive and historical works despite being in very adverse conditions (whether due to illness, economic shortages, hunger or other causes). But, exceptional cases are not the rule of the common. In our case, the usual thing is that if our ‘base reality’ corners us, we have to put aside the pursuit of the upper level of the pyramid in order to fulfill the lower levels. We do that, or we endanger our own survival and that of the people who depend on us.

This reality justifies the need to discuss ways to provide a structure that adresses this situation, in a clear, transparent and rigorous way that has the potential to embrace not only the steemian community but also exterior actors that might be brought into the fold of this project, further improving the possibilities of success of such a project.

2- Challenges

2.a) Selection of the creators to support

The idea that someone will create art until it stands out from the crowd and reaches success by tour-de-force, is somewhat widespread. I have the personal feeling that there are way too many excellent artists that were only recognized after their deaths for me to be able to embrace this idea as an absolute concept.

weisser-rabe wrote:

And so that you don't end up being one of those who sacrifice themselves and become old and bitter in trench warfare for promotion and recognition, I'll let you in on a secret. I am now certain that less is needed instead of more. Less actionism, less structure, fewer guidelines, fewer frameworks. True art prevails!

We create our readership with the way we write and what we write here. A painter or graphic artist presents his work in the best possible way and attracts interested parties. This, and only this, is how an organic art business can function. It is a selection, yes. According to criteria that are subject to a zeitgeist, social demands and trends. But this selection is necessary in order not to come across as arbitrary or irrelevant.

Such valuable works are not usually created in contests or writing courses. Art cannot be learnt. It can be perfected if the talent is there. And to do that, artists need freedom.
Let's not kid ourselves - these days it's all about financial freedom. You can't guarantee that with a few Steem. And sponsors for art, formerly known as patrons, have become rare (because people are generally worse off, their own worries are getting bigger and their wallets smaller and because art is no longer an absolute requirement for the masses...).

True art prevails, yes. Eventually... What I propose is to shorten the time needed for that recognition and to create a structure that provides, at least, the opportunity to achieve that recognition to those that would surely prevail would their living conditions be different. That, clearly needs a framework that is properly financed and criteria for the evaluation of what type of work and themes should be incentivized. This will, inevitably raise the questions: how do we recognize talent? How to evaluate who or what projects to support? What rules are needed to make the distribution of any money a transparent and clearly defined process?

Regarding this, afrog wrote:

If you want to act in a legally secure manner, you must clearly define the key points of your project; otherwise, you will encounter problems when collecting donations. Everyone needs to know what you intend to do with the money. No empty promises or flattery will suffice.

And krucekoncept:

Consider funding, grants, and sponsorships for funding, I think one of the best ways one can go about achieving this is to establish a selection committee to review applications, and offer various levels of support to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness, and also help to comply with relevant laws based on the industry standards you’re looking to work with.

2.b) Promotion of creators and of steemit

A need is clearly identified for both, the promotion of creators inside steemit; and for the promotion of steemit and its creators outside of steemit.

joslud wrote:

I think the most important thing would be to start or continue or restart, with the promotion within Steemit itself, since the blockchain allows that with the votes in favor, you can generate some income.
One objective would be how to achieve greater and better rewards for the artist.
My fear.
That this conversation will get lost, like many others, in the sea of ​​comments.

We already established these necessities and the need to surpass them. Also, we have established that votes alone are not enough to justly reward the creators, as it amounts to a very low income. The challenge becomes, how to achieve greater and better rewards for the artist?

2.c) Make the support for artistic creation a community priority

The need is clearly established to make the support for artistic creation a steemian community priority. This implies the development of a number of actions that make everybody aware of the projects and that generate communitary envolvement and support for it, in an ample and inclusive movement. The idea of supporting and being involved in artistic creation should be instilled in members ever since the first day of steemit membership, being included in the guidelines provided in the Newcomers Community to all those that present themselves there. A list of Communities to visit and actions to take should be prepared to be made available to each and every new member of steemit, as well as being widely resteemed to make all active members aware of it.

2.d) Develop the financial structure to provide this support

In the current climate of low steem and SBD values, the effort for a community only financing of this project seems unlikely to succeed. In this regard, the challenge is to find additional partners that are able to help with financial, technical and promotional support, on the outside of steemit.

3- Opportunities

3.a) Internal Support

Steem had, at the time of writing this post, a market cap of $75,000,000,000.00. It's quite a substancial ammount that I am pretty sure all the major investors would like to see grow. A project for the promotion of art creation that is well structured, has clear and defined objectives and transparent, properly regulated management, can be argued to be an engine for steem promotion and valorization that no investor can ignore. In this respect, such a project has the potential to attract the support of subjects that have, so far, ignored less clear and less regulated models of development of the support for artistic creation.

3.b) External support

A number of NGO's, Private Foundations and Government organizations, especially within the European Union and those connected to the Council of Europe and the UNESCO have funding for the development of projects within their frameworks that is possibly available to provide support to us if presented with solid, well prepared projects. This avenue of opportunity should be explored.

3.c) Community involvement will generate further ideas and insights into financing

As the debate is still ongoing, a number of opportunities are yet to be discovered, and ideas that have been presented are looking for suggestions on how to implement and who to enter contact with.

krucekoncept wrote:

Also I believe partnering with one or two already established individuals in relative industries can help gather more insights on how to go about providing such funds and help to creatives,
Provision of resources, mentorship and tutoring programs can also enhance the project's impact.

solperez wrote:

Steemit es un gran universo. Acá el talento abunda. Pero si no somos capaces de ver un poco más allá de nosotros mismos o de los amigos cercanos, probablemente consideraremos injusto cómo se administran las compensaciones económicas en esta plataforma.

Cuando formé equipo de curación contigo (@ weisser-rabe) y con @ ruthjoe me percaté de las excelentes publicaciones que se realizaban en todas las comunidades. En este momento, luego de 8 meses, estoy de nuevo como curadora, y me doy cuenta de que aquí el talento sobra, y que más bien, necesitamos más "inversores" para darle a los usuarios más apoyo económico. En tal sentido, comparto tu idea:
También atraería a inversores (con altas expectativas de rentabilidad, con potencial publicitario, con alcance...) cuyos depósitos también podrían utilizarse para aumentar el fondo de apoyo ya existente - para los necesitados, personas en dificultades, proyectos educativos y sociales, etc.

3.c) Suggestions on activities

A strong argumentary and advice on actions to take needs to be developed and made available to all creators, to equip them with the needed knowledge to enhance their self promotion.

weisser-rabe wrote:

That's exactly what I would recommend to any artist: Promote yourself, communicate openly, generate followers.

We are not rich... We then considered organising exhibitions for him (@ tezzmax) in our area where he could present and sell his pictures in Europe. Here, too, we failed because no gallery owner was prepared to invite a Nigerian and thereby assume a guarantee for the duration of his stay...
These would be my two suggestions: if you have an appropriate structure in the background that could provide uncomplicated and affordable worldwide shipping of artworks and at the same time keep a base of exhibition venues, auctioneers and collectors available that would like to be an anchor for foreign artists, then you can really make a difference!

This points the way for some other organizational activities for a future structure, namely, the organization of promotional venues for steemian creators, as well as the management of other activities that would promote the availability of their works in the markets that have the liquidity to purchase them. The rentabilization of advertising activities has also been mentioned as a way to help the financing of these projects.

4- Suggestions

4.a) The need for clear regulations

Some of the comments have deepened the conversation about the need to provide clear regulations.

soulfuldreamer wrote:

That said, if I were to add something, I’d suggest considering Selection Criteria:
How to identify artists who truly need support.
Ensuring the funds go to genuine artists rather than opportunists.
Art has a way of bringing people together, but funding it fairly is always a challenge. Maybe a transparent system—where artists share their work, struggles, and aspirations—could help filter out those who truly deserve the support. A balance between merit and need might be a good approach.

4.b) A suggestion to use AI to help with the process

It has been suggested that AI could be a tool to use in the development of this White Paper. Used in either a holistic or only partial way,

afrog has argued for it:

I'm very sorry that you can't see the AI response for what it is. A simple example without more concrete specifications in the enquiry. Hence the numbers and hence the museums. You also have to think for yourself a little when you're dealing with AI. But to fight everything that has to do with AI in a missionary way sounds suspiciously like luddites and religious fervour.
AI, a thing, is nothing to fight against. It is just a helpful app when I am researching a certain topic. You may like to fight people who use AI and bots to get rewards (I tend to ignore them). But don't fight the AI itself. You will lose that battle.

4.c) A contribution towards a conclusion

In the same line, afrog has explored the dialog with the Perplexity AI to give us a contribute towards a conclusion for this paper. It reads as follows:

The Conclusion:
This comprehensive approach to supporting artists in disadvantaged situations will not only benefit the individuals directly involved but also enrich the cultural landscape of communities across their nations. By providing financial support, infrastructure, and opportunities for engagement, we can ensure that diverse artistic voices are heard and celebrated, contributing to a vibrant and inclusive creative sector.

An interesting view, even if it departed from a silicone chip and an algorithm that boggles the mind, and one that I, surprisingly, believe can agree with.

5- New questions

Although this full document is open to discussion and everybody is free to join in positive criticism of it, from the first month of debate, a few new questions arose that need answers and further discussion. I have added these new interrogations to the four original ones and invite you all to try to answer some of them and to invite a few extra steemians to take part in this discussion.

• Can you give ideas for ways to collect financing for this project?

• How to select, evaluate and to what extent support these creators?

• What are the basic rules that a project of this nature must comply with?

• How to we recognize talent? How to evaluate who or what projects to support?

• What rules are needed to make the distribution of any money a transparent and clearly defined process?

• How to achieve greater and better rewards for the artists?

• How can we ensure that the funds go to genuine artists rather than opportunists?

• Should we use AI tools to further the writing of this White Paper?

• What more ideas and considerations do you have on the topic?

That's it for now, and a Second Update will be done once enough data is gathered. I thank you all for your comments and participation in this dialogue and urge you to bring more people into it, by inviting your friends. I will be calling as many persons as I remember, by way of the comment section and bid you an excellent entry into Springtime (for the ones in the Northern Hemisphere), and into Autumn (for the ones in the Southern).

Cheers,

@hefestus 12.03.2025