3 ms·
none of the artists i know have made a living at it, and yet it has stopped precisely none of them. they are not wealthy people. do poor nations lack artists? t
by nyolfen 6y ago
none of the artists i know have made a living at it, and yet it has stopped precisely none of them. they are not wealthy people. do poor nations lack artists? this entire line of thinking is completely divorced from reality. just because the municipal government doesn't pay for as many murals or whatever does not mean artists cease to work.
- dleslie 6y agoThey are wealthy enough to have the leisure time to produce art with instruments of non-trivial expense. Moreover, they aren't going to be producing art which requires a full time effort if they cannot feedthemselves doing so.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nyolfen 6y agothis may surprise you, but art precedes bureaucratic patronage networks, and continues to flourish in their absence
- redwall_hp 6y ago>none of the artists i know have made a living at it, and yet it has stopped precisely none of them Which is a big, bold underscore on the argument that copyright should be abolished. Almost no artists make a living from their work, rendering it a failure at its supposed goal. All it is doing is providing artificial capital for a handful of fat cat media companies and the handful of parasitic artists privileged to be a part of that scene. The vast majority of artists will never get a break, and will have to work to subsidize their art. And what does society get out of the copyright game? Less creative freedom to remix and a select few people get richer. UBI would do more to encourage art.