Monorepo for Aesthetic.Computer
aesthetic.computer
refactor: who-pays paper voice — first-person consistent, remove "we argue"
Changed abstract to first-person voice: "I cross-reference" instead of "We", replaced "we find that" with direct bullet-style statements for punchier prose. Removed "We argue that" in favor of direct assertion. Applied VOICE.md guidelines: short sentences, personal conviction, no hedging language.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
+1
-1
+1
-1
papers/arxiv-sustainability/sustainability.tex
+1
-1
papers/arxiv-sustainability/sustainability.tex
···
98
98
99
99
\begin{quote}
100
100
\small\noindent\textbf{Abstract.}
101
-
Creative computing tools---Processing, p5.js, Sonic Pi, Pure Data, Hydra, TidalCycles, openFrameworks, Scratch, and their kin---are used by millions. Their creators are typically paid by no one, or paid by institutions whose support is contingent on factors unrelated to the tool. This paper surveys the funding histories of 28 open-source creative tool authors, identifying six sustainability models: \emph{academic subsidy} (university salary funds unpaid tool work), \emph{corporate patronage} (a company pays for aligned interests), \emph{personal sacrifice} (savings, retirement funds, health), \emph{community crowdfunding} (Patreon, Open Collective, Ko-fi), and \emph{windfall} (unexpected one-time events like NFT donations), and \emph{no model at all} (disability benefits, homelessness, death). We find that the median gap between a tool's creation and its first sustainable funding is 8 years, that burnout affects creators regardless of funding level, and that the tools most widely used are not the tools best funded. We cross-reference these findings with the author's own experience building \ac{}---a platform with 2,800+ registered users, 93,000+ sessions, and 16,000+ programs written by its community---over five years without the institutional umbrella that sheltered every comparable tool in the field. We argue that the creative computing field's reliance on invisible subsidy---from universities, from spouses, from savings accounts, from health---is not a funding model but the absence of one.
101
+
Creative computing tools---Processing, p5.js, Sonic Pi, Pure Data, Hydra, TidalCycles, openFrameworks, Scratch, and their kin---are used by millions. Their creators are typically paid by no one, or paid by institutions whose support is contingent on factors unrelated to the tool. This paper surveys the funding histories of 28 open-source creative tool authors, identifying six sustainability models: \emph{academic subsidy} (university salary funds unpaid tool work), \emph{corporate patronage} (a company pays for aligned interests), \emph{personal sacrifice} (savings, retirement funds, health), \emph{community crowdfunding} (Patreon, Open Collective, Ko-fi), and \emph{windfall} (unexpected one-time events like NFT donations), and \emph{no model at all} (disability benefits, homelessness, death). The median gap between a tool's creation and its first sustainable funding is 8 years. Burnout affects creators regardless of funding level. The tools most widely used are not the tools best funded. I cross-reference these findings with my own experience building \ac{}---a platform with 2,800+ registered users, 93,000+ sessions, and 16,000+ programs written by its community---over five years without the institutional umbrella that sheltered every comparable tool in the field. The creative computing field's reliance on invisible subsidy---from universities, from spouses, from savings accounts, from health---is not a funding model but the absence of one.
102
102
\end{quote}
103
103
\vspace{0.5em}
104
104
}]