3 ms·

> For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. This seems wildly impro

> For all of human history, we've been making music and art. And for almost all of that time, it was done for love of doing, not money. This seems wildly improbable to me? People didn't get paid for art until a few hundred years ago? Are you suggesting artisans weren't a thing? That all the art produced globally outside of the past few hundred years was done just for love of doing?

skookumchuck 8y ago
I've never heard of artisans getting wealthy before the 20th century.
- Pfhreak 8y ago
  "Wealthy" is a different goalpost than "doing art/music for money". But even then, artisans in antiquity definitely reached middle classes. (And it's plausible to assume that at least a few individuals were wealthier or converted their artisanship into a bigger merchant operation.)
  - usrusr 8y ago
    Sure, but isn't wealthy the undertone that goes into all these laments that music does not pay anymore? (the original doesn't seems much like a lament though, I read it more like a counter to those laments) The whole "Let your creative juices flow, somehow gain access to recording equipment and distribution, have a hit record, be made for life", that's mostly over it seems. But it hasn't been with us for that long to begin with. Except for those brief few decades of industrial recording, getting paid for music has always been hard. Depending on economical overall productivity (excess food for entertainment specialists), maybe some or even a relatively high number of musicians would get paid, but hardly ever (or more likely "never"?) so much that their incomes would be envied by productive middle class, including artisans in decorative fields. Remember that before recording (well, before printed scores), music was entirely transient, whereas the products of artisans would routinely be investments in intergenerational status.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  Wedgewood pottery. Charles Dickens.
- ken 8y ago
  Not even Antonio Stradivari?
mrj 8y ago
People got paid, but there wasn't a way to reproduce art for basically nothing but sell it as if it was the original. That radically changed the economics of music for a period, which could be seen as a distortion and not the way things should be. OP is now lamenting (right or wrong) that system is gone, only the live performance really still exists as a money maker.
- Animats 8y ago
  Right. The OP's lament is heard from other musicians of his age. Being In A Band used to be a Big Deal. Fame, fortune, groupies. Then came lower cost equipment, Myspace, and streaming. At peak there were several million bands on Myspace.
jedberg 8y ago
> Are you suggesting artisans weren't a thing? Historically, anyone who made something by hand was an artisan, so the hammer maker and the sword maker. I suppose you could consider that art, but when I say I art I'm talking music, paining, sculpture, etc. Things that only have aesthetic use, not functional use. And I don't believe there are any examples of people making aesthetic works as their only source of income before recent times, other than through patronage. I've only studied art history briefly though, someone who has studied it more could probably chime in here.
- Pfhreak 8y ago
  Grecian pots are covered in paintings. Greek and roman sculpture was considered one of the highest forms of art by Pliny. Pliny said this of Peiraikos: It is well to add an account of the artists who won fame with the brush in painting smaller pictures. Amongst them was Peiraikos. In mastery of his art but few take rank above him, yet by his choice of a path he has perhaps marred his own success, for he followed a humble line, winning however the highest glory that it had to bring. He painted barbers' shops, cobblers' stalls, asses, eatables and similar subjects, earning for himself the name of rhyparographos [painter of dirt/low things]. In these subjects he could give consummate pleasure, selling them for more than other artists received for their large pictures. Polygnotus? Apollodorus? Zeuxis and Parrhasius? That's drawing just from Greek history.
  - marshray 8y ago
    Yeah I bet the 300+ year history of Ancient Greece has several examples of famous artists being well paid.
- ken 8y ago
  This sounds like an artificial distinction, drawn there only to make the point you want to make. A hammer isn't art, because a hammer is functional, and a decorative handle on it is part of that non-art. A wall isn't art, because a wall is functional, yet a fresco painted on it is art?
- pmoriarty 8y ago
RugnirViking 8y ago
For most of human history, MONEY wasn't a thing. And yet we still have cave paintings as well as clear evidence that tribepeople and pre-agricultaral societies made music, art, poetry and more. Consider that this time could have been spent building shelter, or hunting for food. We make art because we enjoy it
- Pfhreak 8y ago
  You misunderstand my point. I never said we do art only for money. I specifically objected to the idea that artists have only been able to do art for the money for the past few hundred years. Sumeria had coinage thousands of years before common era. So money has definitely been a thing for more than a few hundred years.
  - adrian_b 8y ago
    They did not have coinage, but they already had prices and also professional musicians (besides other non-producing professionals which appeared there for the first time, i.e. judges, medical doctors, accountants and prostitutes) (obviously, chiefs and priests existed much time before written history). Initially the prices were expressed as weights of precious metals. The coins, which allowed simpler payments, without the use of weighing scales, appeared thousands of years later after the prices, probably in Lydia in the first millennium BC.
Theodores 8y ago
Yes. There is this question of 'what is art'? and we can assume that old cave paintings are 'art' but is it really? Is that just us assuming this is 'art'? Art as we know it really is a capitalist contrivance. Sure the communists had art too but do native people outside of regular capitalism have 'art'? In Canada they tried to get an art exhibition together of native people's art. It didn't really happen. They tried teaching them how to make art but they didn't get it. This was not because the native folk were primitive and backward, far from it. They had plenty of beautiful things they made as part of their daily existence. However, they did not see the world mediated through images and capitalism. They weren't worshipping icons either. Before capitalism as we know it took over the church had all the power and art was invariably made on some Bible oriented theme. Nobody painted scenes of rural peasant life, it was always the baby Jesus. I am sure that everyone puts some art into what they do. Writing code is an art. The medium just isn't brown pots or watercolours. Code is a creative medium though. Music is an interesting one as we all grew up at a time when we partied for fun. The guy sorting out the music was just contributing to it. Then we grow up and meet musician friends. And yes, all of them are out to make money, it isn't just about the music any more. It probably had more to do with sex first time around so even then it wasn't entirely just about the music. This is why music is not at all useful for revolutionary or activist causes. There aren't many John Lennon's in the world willing to stay in bed for peace. Sometimes I hear of musicians I listened to many aeons ago and wonder when it is they will get a proper job. Years ago it was about the music, now it is about paying for the kids to go to private schools. Most of what we know of as art because it commands price tags is 'art business'. This is just a game and the likes of Damien Hirst know how it is played.

skookumchuck 8y ago

I've never heard of artisans getting wealthy before the 20th century.

Pfhreak 8y ago
"Wealthy" is a different goalpost than "doing art/music for money". But even then, artisans in antiquity definitely reached middle classes. (And it's plausible to assume that at least a few individuals were wealthier or converted their artisanship into a bigger merchant operation.)
- usrusr 8y ago
  Sure, but isn't wealthy the undertone that goes into all these laments that music does not pay anymore? (the original doesn't seems much like a lament though, I read it more like a counter to those laments) The whole "Let your creative juices flow, somehow gain access to recording equipment and distribution, have a hit record, be made for life", that's mostly over it seems. But it hasn't been with us for that long to begin with. Except for those brief few decades of industrial recording, getting paid for music has always been hard. Depending on economical overall productivity (excess food for entertainment specialists), maybe some or even a relatively high number of musicians would get paid, but hardly ever (or more likely "never"?) so much that their incomes would be envied by productive middle class, including artisans in decorative fields. Remember that before recording (well, before printed scores), music was entirely transient, whereas the products of artisans would routinely be investments in intergenerational status.
anigbrowl 8y ago
Wedgewood pottery. Charles Dickens.
ken 8y ago
Not even Antonio Stradivari?

mrj 8y ago

People got paid, but there wasn't a way to reproduce art for basically nothing but sell it as if it was the original. That radically changed the economics of music for a period, which could be seen as a distortion and not the way things should be. OP is now lamenting (right or wrong) that system is gone, only the live performance really still exists as a money maker.

Animats 8y ago
Right. The OP's lament is heard from other musicians of his age. Being In A Band used to be a Big Deal. Fame, fortune, groupies. Then came lower cost equipment, Myspace, and streaming. At peak there were several million bands on Myspace.

jedberg 8y ago

> Are you suggesting artisans weren't a thing? Historically, anyone who made something by hand was an artisan, so the hammer maker and the sword maker. I suppose you could consider that art, but when I say I art I'm talking music, paining, sculpture, etc. Things that only have aesthetic use, not functional use. And I don't believe there are any examples of people making aesthetic works as their only source of income before recent times, other than through patronage. I've only studied art history briefly though, someone who has studied it more could probably chime in here.

Pfhreak 8y ago
Grecian pots are covered in paintings. Greek and roman sculpture was considered one of the highest forms of art by Pliny. Pliny said this of Peiraikos: It is well to add an account of the artists who won fame with the brush in painting smaller pictures. Amongst them was Peiraikos. In mastery of his art but few take rank above him, yet by his choice of a path he has perhaps marred his own success, for he followed a humble line, winning however the highest glory that it had to bring. He painted barbers' shops, cobblers' stalls, asses, eatables and similar subjects, earning for himself the name of rhyparographos [painter of dirt/low things]. In these subjects he could give consummate pleasure, selling them for more than other artists received for their large pictures. Polygnotus? Apollodorus? Zeuxis and Parrhasius? That's drawing just from Greek history.
- marshray 8y ago
  Yeah I bet the 300+ year history of Ancient Greece has several examples of famous artists being well paid.
ken 8y ago
This sounds like an artificial distinction, drawn there only to make the point you want to make. A hammer isn't art, because a hammer is functional, and a decorative handle on it is part of that non-art. A wall isn't art, because a wall is functional, yet a fresco painted on it is art?
pmoriarty 8y ago

RugnirViking 8y ago

For most of human history, MONEY wasn't a thing. And yet we still have cave paintings as well as clear evidence that tribepeople and pre-agricultaral societies made music, art, poetry and more. Consider that this time could have been spent building shelter, or hunting for food. We make art because we enjoy it

Pfhreak 8y ago
You misunderstand my point. I never said we do art only for money. I specifically objected to the idea that artists have only been able to do art for the money for the past few hundred years. Sumeria had coinage thousands of years before common era. So money has definitely been a thing for more than a few hundred years.
- adrian_b 8y ago
  They did not have coinage, but they already had prices and also professional musicians (besides other non-producing professionals which appeared there for the first time, i.e. judges, medical doctors, accountants and prostitutes) (obviously, chiefs and priests existed much time before written history). Initially the prices were expressed as weights of precious metals. The coins, which allowed simpler payments, without the use of weighing scales, appeared thousands of years later after the prices, probably in Lydia in the first millennium BC.

Theodores 8y ago

Yes. There is this question of 'what is art'? and we can assume that old cave paintings are 'art' but is it really? Is that just us assuming this is 'art'? Art as we know it really is a capitalist contrivance. Sure the communists had art too but do native people outside of regular capitalism have 'art'? In Canada they tried to get an art exhibition together of native people's art. It didn't really happen. They tried teaching them how to make art but they didn't get it. This was not because the native folk were primitive and backward, far from it. They had plenty of beautiful things they made as part of their daily existence. However, they did not see the world mediated through images and capitalism. They weren't worshipping icons either. Before capitalism as we know it took over the church had all the power and art was invariably made on some Bible oriented theme. Nobody painted scenes of rural peasant life, it was always the baby Jesus. I am sure that everyone puts some art into what they do. Writing code is an art. The medium just isn't brown pots or watercolours. Code is a creative medium though. Music is an interesting one as we all grew up at a time when we partied for fun. The guy sorting out the music was just contributing to it. Then we grow up and meet musician friends. And yes, all of them are out to make money, it isn't just about the music any more. It probably had more to do with sex first time around so even then it wasn't entirely just about the music. This is why music is not at all useful for revolutionary or activist causes. There aren't many John Lennon's in the world willing to stay in bed for peace. Sometimes I hear of musicians I listened to many aeons ago and wonder when it is they will get a proper job. Years ago it was about the music, now it is about paying for the kids to go to private schools. Most of what we know of as art because it commands price tags is 'art business'. This is just a game and the likes of Damien Hirst know how it is played.