American cinematographer (Feb-Dec 1922)

THE AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER March 1, 1922 How Much Are We Worth? Is the Artist As Worthy of His Hire As the Laborer, Or Is His Compensation Merely Aibitrary? By John Leezer, A. S. C. JOHN LEEZER, A. S. C. JN THESE days of specializing, human endeavor tends toward many vocations, but for convenience let us consider only four general divisions: Professional men, mechanics, merchants and artists. A man is a mechanic because he seems best fitted for that kind of work. If he paints beautiful pictures, makes wonderful photographs, or has won fame because of his work in marble, we call him an artist. The motion picture photo grapher belongs to this class of workers. He knows considerable about other lines of work, but he spends the most time at the thing he likes best and is so classiified. He is not only classified as an artist, but he must be one in every sense of the word — first, last and all the time. The bigger the man, inside, I mean, the greater artist will he be, but an artist is not an artist unless he can express himself. A man says he is a farmer. How do we know? Another may say he is an architect. How shall we know? If a man be an artist, he has already, by some such medium as the brush, lens or chisel, proven it. Those who can afford to give expression to their artistic sense, solely for the pleasure they derive, are few. Compensation is a wonderful incentive to artistic expression. So the question naturally arises, what are the efforts of an artist worth? Values are supposed to be determined by supply and demand. If you have talent to sell or real estate or a goat, it is worth what you can get for it. The man with brains offers them for sale in the open market and they are sold to the highest bidder. No one is going to pay a portrait photographer fifty dollars for a dozen 8x10s unless he thinks they are worth it — at least, not many. If the portrait artist is satisfied that the photographs are worth fifty dollars, but is unable to get it, is he justified in reducing the price? Before we decide, whether he is or not let us go a little farther into the matter. We must not forget that we are discussing the class of human beings called artists. The artist does not sit or stand at a machine all day long, turning out a part of a shoe, a hat or a watch. Such an operator puts no part of himself into what he produces. The machine does it; he is a machine man, but what you see on the canvas, on the photo mount, or in the marble, is a part of the man or woman whose work it is. The Indian believes that something has gone from him into his photograph, otherwise it would not look like him, so We recognize the artist in his work, because of the personality stamped upon it. We know it is a Remington without seeing the name. This comparison between the mechanic and the artist has been made to demonstrate how little they have in common that would indicate what their labor is worth. The wages of the mechanic are determined by comparison. His wage is standard at so much per hour. The compensation of the artist on the other hand is not arrived at by comparison. Even the work of modern painters varies in price. Some portrait photographers get ten, fifteen and twenty dollars Cinematograph lenses F3.5 in the new spiral mount. All sizes in stock HAROLD M. BENNETT U. S. Agent 153 West 23rd Street New York La Cinematografia Italiana ed Estera Official Organ of the Italian Cinematograph Union PUBLISHED ON THE 15TH AND 30TH OF EACH MONTH Foreign Subscription: 7 Dollars per annum. Advertising Rates on Application Editorial and Business Offices: VIA CUMIANA, 31 TURIN (ITALY)