4 ms·

That's an interesting remark indeed. Though I do see some differences that might explain it. For example, the cinemas and museums differ vastly on the medium th

That's an interesting remark indeed. Though I do see some differences that might explain it. For example, the cinemas and museums differ vastly on the medium they serve. A copy of a painting bears little value. A singer is unique in its persona for the live ecperience but can serve a large crowd in one sitting, saturating the market. Whereas a painting can only be viewed by a small crowd at any single time, given you want to see the original and not a display. So it will take ages to extract value when based on a reasonable ticket price. This stands in contrast with the prices often paid for high profile pieces, giving reason to subsidized content. Which in general is best served to a non profit. Or to put it more bluntly, art is an archaic medium of entertainment that has little chance of survival against modern media and society wishes to keep it.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> A singer is unique in its persona for the live ecperience but can serve a large crowd in one sitting, saturating the market. Whereas a painting can only be viewed by a small crowd at any single time, given you want to see the original and not a display. A singer can only serve a large crowd if his voice be amplified by some mechanism, which is no different than electronically magnifying a painting. For the “authentic” experience, one would have to be closer, which means the serving would be diminished in capacity. Apart from that, the Dutch government arbitrarily gives out art subsidies for musical performances, invariably performances it arbitrarily deems “artistic” enough, which seems to come down to little more than “whatever style of music it associates with an older, more educated, wealthier audience.” I find it rather arbitrary that Wibi Soerjadi can cash in his art subsidies, but Anouk cannot. > Or to put it more bluntly, art is an archaic medium of entertainment that has little chance of survival against modern media and society wishes to keep it. And I would submit that the reasons that society wishes to keep it, is purely because it's associated with rich, educated adults.
- hetspookjee 6y ago
  My argument leans heavily in the fact that electronically magnifying a painting does not work for most, whereas amplified voices do. Otherwise everyone can just Google the paintings right? The magic is seeing it in real life. Which has practical limitations hampering the business case.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    And everyone can also listen to music at home, yet many go to concerts instead, and many say that hearing a band performed unplugged adds an extra layer of authenticity and intimacy to the sound.
    - hetspookjee 6y ago
      Yes, exactly. People can listen music at home, and also see pictures of paintings at home. Yet people do go to digitally scaled events of musicians, while they don't go to digitally scaled events of paintings. Why that is, I tried to explain in my previous post. Your argument regarding authenticity of unplugged artists applies only to a fraction of people.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

> A singer is unique in its persona for the live ecperience but can serve a large crowd in one sitting, saturating the market. Whereas a painting can only be viewed by a small crowd at any single time, given you want to see the original and not a display. A singer can only serve a large crowd if his voice be amplified by some mechanism, which is no different than electronically magnifying a painting. For the “authentic” experience, one would have to be closer, which means the serving would be diminished in capacity. Apart from that, the Dutch government arbitrarily gives out art subsidies for musical performances, invariably performances it arbitrarily deems “artistic” enough, which seems to come down to little more than “whatever style of music it associates with an older, more educated, wealthier audience.” I find it rather arbitrary that Wibi Soerjadi can cash in his art subsidies, but Anouk cannot. > Or to put it more bluntly, art is an archaic medium of entertainment that has little chance of survival against modern media and society wishes to keep it. And I would submit that the reasons that society wishes to keep it, is purely because it's associated with rich, educated adults.

hetspookjee 6y ago
My argument leans heavily in the fact that electronically magnifying a painting does not work for most, whereas amplified voices do. Otherwise everyone can just Google the paintings right? The magic is seeing it in real life. Which has practical limitations hampering the business case.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  And everyone can also listen to music at home, yet many go to concerts instead, and many say that hearing a band performed unplugged adds an extra layer of authenticity and intimacy to the sound.
  - hetspookjee 6y ago
    Yes, exactly. People can listen music at home, and also see pictures of paintings at home. Yet people do go to digitally scaled events of musicians, while they don't go to digitally scaled events of paintings. Why that is, I tried to explain in my previous post. Your argument regarding authenticity of unplugged artists applies only to a fraction of people.