Amanda Palmer made some waves with her talk at TED 2013. The big controversy: she explained that the key to getting people to pay for something the can get for free is simple – all you have to do is ask them.

The big idea of her presentation is that superstardom has been a relatively new way of life for musicians and it’s now on the way out. This isn’t a bad thing. As the distance between musician and fan closes, musicians find themselves interacting directly with their community. For Palmer this means letting drunk Germans draw on her naked body. Others might not go that far. Nonetheless, those whose lives are positively effected by the creation will generously help the artist make a living. Through that intimate exchange the music is also enriched. It’s a symbiotic relationship between artist and fan.

The fact that she led such a successful Kickstarter campaign also draws attention to social classism and animosity, as well as the capitalistic degradation of art. If people want to give to an artist so he or she can create whatever they as investors want to see created, what’s the problem with that? Should someone who is finically successful via such honest means (Palmer even published an itemization of her Kickstarter funds) be considered undeserving of their success?  And can one really be said to be greedy of they let the consumer pay whatever the hell they want? I think not.

For more about Amanda Palmer check out her blog: Amanda Palmer’s Blog