3 ms·

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that the argument that only "marketable" skills are valuable is a farce. The United States is a cultural black ho

by dvt 8y ago

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that the argument that only "marketable" skills are valuable is a farce. The United States is a cultural black hole and this article exemplifies why. Engineering, the STEM fields, and tech are also cultural wastelands. This is a major issue for me -- and one of the reasons I'm trying to get out of tech. Even if we ignore the fact that some of our greatest thinkers often had "non-marketable" proclivities (Newton was also an Anglican theologian, Einstein worked as a patent clerk, Bertrand Russell wrote poetry, C.S Lewis was an author, etc.), there's something deeply human about being able to put pen to paper. But, for whatever reason, we are losing sight of why poetry, music, and art is valuable. This is a wide-ranging problem and no one seems interested in fixing it.

fullshark 8y ago
> But, for whatever reason, we are losing sight of why poetry, music, and art is valuable. Everyone thinks those things are valuable, but due to nearly costless distribution of media the very best in their field can distribute their art to the entire world and we can enjoy it. It's a market that lends itself to superstar economics now, like spectator sports stars. As a consumer of art, it has never been easier to enjoy and appreciate it.
travisoneill1 8y ago
Marketable just means somebody will pay you for it. All of your examples were extremely marketable. The fact is that since poetry, art, and music scale so well, we only need a few professionals and therefore only truly exceptional people can do it. Why does a mediocre artist somehow have more value than a mediocre basketball player, for example?
mitchellst 8y ago
Yes, life is bigger than commerce. But your comment makes me wonder, "then, whose art should we value?" It's not that the US doesn't value art— highbrow or low brow, we have some of the finest museums of visual arts and the biggest of big-hair country music. We (more than) adequately finance both. Our resources, time, attention, and interest are finite, so how do you propose we choose whom to pay for their art? By MFA degree? School ranking? Random lottery? Honestly, I'm sympathetic to the author, not least because I think there's some irony in the piece. She recalls mournfully the time she revealed on social media that she was at the edge of homelessness if she could not raise money. If that was painful for her, the impetus behind this essay is not as self-indulgent as it appears. She did not relish publishing this, rather, she did it because Slate paid her for it, and she's still trying to make her ambitions work. She may or may not yet succeed, but there's something admirable—and, one fears, perhaps pitiable—in her dedication.
michaelt 8y ago
the argument that only "marketable" skills are valuable is a farce Would you acknowledge there's a distinction between valuable in the good-for-society-to-have sense, and valuable in the high-average-salary sense?

by dvt 8y ago

fullshark 8y ago

> But, for whatever reason, we are losing sight of why poetry, music, and art is valuable. Everyone thinks those things are valuable, but due to nearly costless distribution of media the very best in their field can distribute their art to the entire world and we can enjoy it. It's a market that lends itself to superstar economics now, like spectator sports stars. As a consumer of art, it has never been easier to enjoy and appreciate it.

travisoneill1 8y ago

Marketable just means somebody will pay you for it. All of your examples were extremely marketable. The fact is that since poetry, art, and music scale so well, we only need a few professionals and therefore only truly exceptional people can do it. Why does a mediocre artist somehow have more value than a mediocre basketball player, for example?

mitchellst 8y ago

Yes, life is bigger than commerce. But your comment makes me wonder, "then, whose art should we value?" It's not that the US doesn't value art— highbrow or low brow, we have some of the finest museums of visual arts and the biggest of big-hair country music. We (more than) adequately finance both. Our resources, time, attention, and interest are finite, so how do you propose we choose whom to pay for their art? By MFA degree? School ranking? Random lottery? Honestly, I'm sympathetic to the author, not least because I think there's some irony in the piece. She recalls mournfully the time she revealed on social media that she was at the edge of homelessness if she could not raise money. If that was painful for her, the impetus behind this essay is not as self-indulgent as it appears. She did not relish publishing this, rather, she did it because Slate paid her for it, and she's still trying to make her ambitions work. She may or may not yet succeed, but there's something admirable—and, one fears, perhaps pitiable—in her dedication.

michaelt 8y ago

the argument that only "marketable" skills are valuable is a farce Would you acknowledge there's a distinction between valuable in the good-for-society-to-have sense, and valuable in the high-average-salary sense?