Busting a Three Gut

 

COMMENTS

Reports of TCB's auction's damage to charity greatly exaggerated, exhibit 1.

I just got a press release that opens thusly:

"Thursday, August 10, 2006 at the Gladstone Hotel saw 250 Habitat for Humanity Toronto supporters attend the Cement Mixer, a silent auction fundraiser geared towards Toronto’s young professionals. The event raised over $25,000 - an impressive 135% increase over last year’s revenues."

I.e., the charitable sector is surviving Tyler's project just fine.

Posted by zoilus on August 22, 2006 2:37 PM

 

 

Yeah, probably being taken more seriously than it should. Still find it gross though.

Posted by Jay on August 22, 2006 9:31 AM

 

 

I misspoke above: Tyler is getting 40% not 20%. Sorry.

Posted by zoilus on August 21, 2006 9:12 PM

 

 

First, to clarify: No, Tyler is not having a health problem, but "family health problems" would be accurate. For family reasons, she doesn't want to reveal any details, but it's relevant. (She now has a clarification up on her site.)

Otherwise: These arguments make me understand a little more fully what people are bothered by here. I don't agree with the idea that it's possible to misappropriate a form of activity, or that an activity such as an auction can be by its very nature charitable, so long as it's fully accurately represented and there is no deception involved. (Eg., if a band asked fans to bring food instead of money for a show, but actually wanted it to eat themselves, that'd be fine with me if they clearly stated that fact - "Food Drive to Feed Indie Rockers" or whatever - I don't think it would damage the general practice of food-bank donation. And I think it would be funny. And kind of an interesting stab at barter.)

As I've said, I think auctions are far from exclusively a charitable form - Tyler's certainly playing with the whole idea of an eBay auction here, too, and those are generally just done for money.

Mainly I feel like people are taking this playful project with much less good humour than the way it was presented. To talk about "the lowest form of entrepreneurship" - compared with the many truly base and immoral forms of profiteering that businesses can be involved in - seems incredibly disproportionate to the offence here, if offence there be.

Also, of course charities can "compete" with Tyler's auctions, as many of the people who are participating also participate in charity events, play at benefits, etc. One doesn't preclude the other.

But I do get why other people might disagree, much more clearly out of this thread than I have from discussions elsewhere. And the issues raised are worthwhile ones to consider for anyone whose projects might graze the realm of what's normally considered charity.

Posted by zoilus on August 21, 2006 8:56 PM

 

 

I don't agree that this is just another argument over artists making money from their art. The problem I have with it, and what I feel sets it apart from that argument, is that the medium Tyler has chosen is one that is almost exclusively associated with raising funds for charities.

This is not a creative idea on her part, but merely an appropriation of an existing idea for her own personal gain. I find this transfer of benefactor from community to individual to be one of the lowest forms of entrepreneurship.

I also feel that this prevents me from just being able to ignore it because I feel that it has the potential to do harm to charities who use this type of auction format for more noble purposes. People who have offered their services up for auction have said they aren't targeting people who would want to help Tyler, but people who want a song or a book written about them. The problem is, these are the same people actual charities would target as well, and how could any charity compete with the amazing items that Tyler has procured through her connections?

Posted by Jay on August 21, 2006 8:13 PM

 

 

TCB = Taking Care of Business.

Posted by bdub on August 21, 2006 1:57 PM

 

 

Yes, this "ailing" thing seems to come out of nowhere.

Mark, pretty much Ed expresses most of what I think about this issue, and you may be right that we're biased. Tyler sometimes doesn't frame things clearly enough - that is, though she's been totally upfront about everything all the way along, her tone is so casual that there's the implicit assumption that she is speaking to her own community rather than to a public. This isn't an uncommon problem for arts folks to have, but it can create the kind of discomfort that's obviously been generated.

At the same time, however, I think that what's been brought to the surface here is the assumption among many people that art is charity work and inherently non-profit. Any time it's exposed that artists might make art for money, a lot of armchair critics seem to start throwing fits. (You're right that the "auction" model is often one used to raise charitable funds. However, it's also one used to sell paintings for millions of dollars.)

The thing that I've thought was kind of hilarious about it all the way along is that there is no way this project is going to raise the kind of money that will let Tyler buy a house - especially when she's only taking 20% of it. It probably would be fair to say that the project attracts incoherent critiques because of its own incoherence. But the sense of righteous anger, the financial resentment, and the strange paranoia - as if anyone were somehow being coerced to care about this auction, much less being forced to participate - all seem to me much more unpleasant than anything about the project itself.

Posted by zoilus on August 21, 2006 1:13 PM

 

 

Agreed, Justin. I've also see "the ailing Tyler Clark Burke" finding its way around (usually in stories that follow with, "he founded Three Gut Records...").

I'll let Tyler clear up what the nature of her "family health problems" may be if she wants to but, as a participant, my understanding of this auction has never had anything to do with Tyler herself being ill or needing a home to deal with her (as far as I know) non-existent illness.

However, if she could sing "Twist and Shout" in the middle of a Ukranian parade and then have a troubled friend kick a vintage Ferrari off a cliff, that would be cool.

Posted by Edward Keenan on August 20, 2006 9:58 PM

 

 

I love her auction unfortunately I'd love Tyler to clear this up:"

From the top 3 search results for "Peaches+auction" on Google News:

"The auction is aiming to raise money to buy Burke, who is experiencing family health problems, a home."

"The auction was part of a number of others intended to raise money for the financially and health burdened Tyler Clark Burke"

"an online auction to benefit Three Gut Records founder Tyler Clark Burke, who has been suffering from health problems"

She wants to buy a house and she's getting friends to help - nothing wrong with that at all. Unfortunately things are taking on a "SAVE FERRIS" quality that needs to be cleared up quickly.

Posted by Justin on August 20, 2006 7:59 PM

 

 

As a friend of Tyler's and a contributor to the auction, I fall into the category of opinion on this that you'd expect, markp. Where I differ from you (other than knowing Tyler and therefore, as you said, thinking it's an interesting and fun way to help her out and help me out and hey! help out Habitat for Humanity too, a little bit) is that I never imagined anyone would be motivated to bid on my item because they thought Tyler was a worthy cause. I thought they might -- though I thought they might not, too, and it appears more and more that the latter was correct -- want to bid on my item because they thought it would be neat to have someone write a book about them. End of story, as far as motivations for purchasing are concerned.

The same goes for all of the items on offer. I think the reason to bid on K-os DJing your house party is because you want K-os to DJ your house party. If you're a big Feist fan or a musician looking for some attention and a break, maybe having her play your song onstage is worth a few hundred bucks. If you're vain, you might enjoy the idea that BSS has written a song about you. I'm sure there are a lot of people for whom a corn chip with a portrait of the Mona Lisa on it is an object worth owning.

See, unlike charity appeals, I think the items up for auction here have inherent value quite aside from any good feelings one gets about where the money is going. And I'm frankly having a hard time understanding all the anger and resentment that's popped up in certain corners about this.

Tyler's mistake may have been telling people how she was planning to spend the money. If I went in to my boss every day and said, "the money you pay me today, I'm spending on booze, the money you pay me tomorrow is going to buy my kids diapers -- you still want to pay me?" the executive message boards at the company I work for might, I imagine, light up with similar conversations about whether I am a worthy expense. But instead I keep my spending habits secret from my boss and they pay me strictly on the basis that they think my services are worth the cash, without any thought as to where the money will be ulitmately spent, as far as I can tell.

Tyler broke down that wall -- in a way I find interesting -- by telling people where her brokerage and promotions fee for this auction was going -- a bit to charity and a lot to her housing. And people have freaked.

It'd be interesting to find out if we'd see the same reaction if every arts and music promoter/performer took a similar approach: "Arcade fire will be spending half of your $22 on tour expenses, 10 per cent on rent, 40 per cent on shiny objects that amuse them", "Jane Corkin will give 10 per cent of her commission to her church, spend 30 per cent on furnishings for her home, 20 per cent on food and the rest on lavishly catered parties to which you will not be invited."

At the end of the day, almost every art sale is a commercial trasaction and the question is, "is the piece worth it to me?" If the answer is yes, then it isn't necessarily the buyer's concern whether the artist will give the money away to feed the needy or spend it all on heroin.

I think, if you want your money to go to a worthy cause, you should give it to a worthy cause and stop puzzling over why Tyler Clark Burke hasn't offered to shepherd that transaction.

If, however, you'd prefer to spend your money on Peaches' energetically used underpants, then buy them. And if you don't think Tyler deserves to be paid for the service of providing you with that material link to Peaches' nether region, then you're welcome to try to find another supplier. Good luck with that.

Posted by Edward Keenan on August 19, 2006 11:50 PM

 

 

I hereby decree all arguements against TCB to be "incoherent". That is all.

Posted by Michael on August 19, 2006 2:29 PM

 

 

really not feeling you on this one, carl.

it seems to me like the dividing line in this whole debate is whether you're friends with tcb or not. i don't know her at all, which is almost certainly why this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. i'm positioned to this story much differently than you are.

yeah, sure, its a business venture and she's mostly upfront about that. where it falls down for me is that the type of 'items' she's selling and the language she's using to sell them are typically constrained to *genuinely* charitable endeavors. any moneymaking enterprise i've ever seen that exploits the lanugage/power of a localized community in similar fashion (be it a school bake sale, church auction, whatever) has always come with a nobler, community-minded cause attached. buying somebody a house cause they're tired of moving (aren't we all) ain't one of them.

i understand that to the huge portion of torontoites/stilleposters who know tyler & the donors & each other, this looks, feels and tastes like a really fun and natural way to do a favor for a good friend. god knows i'm not saying that it wasn't done with the best of intentions. what i am saying that as soon as you put elements of that smaller community up for rent to the public at large and start subverting the language/intimacy of that community ("Sheila Heti will find your true love, Sasha Van Bon Bon will dance for you, Feist will sing with you, Edward Keenan will write a book about you" etc etc) *expressly* in order to make a buck, you are walking on some very shaky ground.

for me, personally, there's NO dirtier feeling than when a corporate entity with obvious vested financial interests tries to exploit the language of community in an attempt to win my dollar. the walmart/blockbuster mandated "hello" rule drives me crazy. same with any banking/insurance entity that tries to position itself through advertising as my friend and loyal support.

obviously i'd be crazy to suggest that tcb is doing *exactly* the same thing, but, as someone who isn't a part of this community and who barely knows any of the people on this website, i can't deny that i feel like there's a very similar layer of artifice at play. its community for sale to the highest bidder/most loyal customer, and the more i think about it, the more it makes me angry. the only reason i can think of to dismiss that as an "incoherent" objection is cause it challenges assumptions about the whole torontopian/torontoist community ideal...

Posted by markp on August 19, 2006 12:59 PM