3 ms·

Actually... yes there is. At least there is a limit to the economic value of art. Given a finite human population with a finite lifespan (also implying a finite

by brrt 11y ago

Actually... yes there is. At least there is a limit to the economic value of art. Given a finite human population with a finite lifespan (also implying a finite rate of reproduction), there is only so much attention that can be given to any form of art created. If a world would start creating art non-stop (which is pretty much what is happening now) the economic value of an average piece of art must drop to zero for the simple reason that people haven't the time to observe it. (Assuming that art can only be valuable economically if it is observed, which is kind of optimistic actually). Also pretty much the state in which we find ourselves now already. A finite earth can support a finite population which can use finite resources to employ a finite economy. I'm not sure what's difficult about that concept; especially since a zero-growth economy is not a new concept (it's called 'maturity' when applied to an ecological system).

ScottBurson 11y ago
You can't just wave your hands and say "I think this number is small, so I'm going to call it zero". There's an infinite difference between any nonzero number and zero. And in fact, the economic value of an average piece of art is obviously not zero. I'm not going to bother to try to estimate it -- do any 3-year-old's scribblings count? -- but it's not zero. You're also overlooking the rather obvious and important fact that the quality of different works varies tremendously. While it's true that appreciating art does require some time, the amount of value I receive in return, and therefore the price I'm willing to pay, is a function of (my perception of) the quality of the work. And it doesn't necessarily take me more time to experience a higher-quality work than a lower-quality one.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Aren't digital works fast approaching a value of zero? Taylor Swift is pissed she doesn't get paid enough from Spotify, but perhaps her music is worthless because there's already so much music available (the more abundant a resource, the lower its value). Attention is now what is constrained.

by brrt 11y ago

ScottBurson 11y ago

You can't just wave your hands and say "I think this number is small, so I'm going to call it zero". There's an infinite difference between any nonzero number and zero. And in fact, the economic value of an average piece of art is obviously not zero. I'm not going to bother to try to estimate it -- do any 3-year-old's scribblings count? -- but it's not zero. You're also overlooking the rather obvious and important fact that the quality of different works varies tremendously. While it's true that appreciating art does require some time, the amount of value I receive in return, and therefore the price I'm willing to pay, is a function of (my perception of) the quality of the work. And it doesn't necessarily take me more time to experience a higher-quality work than a lower-quality one.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Aren't digital works fast approaching a value of zero? Taylor Swift is pissed she doesn't get paid enough from Spotify, but perhaps her music is worthless because there's already so much music available (the more abundant a resource, the lower its value). Attention is now what is constrained.