5 ms·

In other words: it's old news that only the wealthy can afford to study the arts and be productive as an artist. But the country doesn't have a workforce develo

In other words: it's old news that only the wealthy can afford to study the arts and be productive as an artist. But the country doesn't have a workforce development policy either. You have to be independently wealthy to take a few years off to train for a career in a field that's actually in demand! That's not how it's supposed to be.

vesuvianvenus 5y ago
It's not "supposed to be" any way whatsoever-- Neither The Universe nor The Global Economy depend on human senses of fairness or opinions. >only the wealthy can afford to study the arts and be productive as an artist. "study", "afford", and "productive" to me sound vague and subjective. One needs only sources of knowledge (even if its simply experimentation), willpower, food, and water, in order to download knowledge into their brain (and then to apply that knowledge by building small projects to demonstrate skills to future employers). Nor does a person need to be independently wealthy to take time off. I was in debt $3000 on a credit card by the time I arrived in Juneau, Alaska and within two weeks started working at $13/hr at a fish smokehouse, while camping on a nearby mountainside. And I had a janky 2003 toyota corolla (trip was in 2015). From where in your mind do you generate these fearful presuppositions? Success is determined by many factors, but they include Strategy, Willpower, Resourcefulness, Willingness to fail. And sure, you can throw preexisting wealth into there and weight it however you want, in a predictive equation. But ultimately that is taking the accountability away from the individual and presenting a false dichotomy ("a premise that erroneously limits what options are available.") [1]. There's no rulebook that says "You have to be wealthy to study art" or "You have to pay money to study art" or "You can't take time off to study <thing>." You definitely can. You can live in a tent, you can use your company's lunchroom for breakfast and lunch, and cook dinner on your camping stove. You can find public bathroom facilities. All of this can be done. Is it inconvenient? Does it require sacrifice? Hence one should do so strategically, and only for goals with high ROI (such as investing in yourself by building skills that are in high demand). ____________ Heck, Wealth and Art is a conversation all its own. The value of artists and art is different in different cultures. And the utility of art, in most cases, is very low. Hence it is a "luxury pursuit" that even primitive tribes engaged in back in prehistory-- when they had the "luxury" of some ... "time off" :) Lastly, just using basic reasoning, I ask you this: Has Art not existed before wealth? Are art and poverty mutually exclusive? I think your argument is lacking, in addressing these two questions, especially given the amount of artists (especially in music) who arise from impoverished conditions. I would also encourage you to do some research on artists from unconvential backgrounds. Such as former boxer and world-renowned architect Tadao Ando. Do a quick online search for "Famous Artists Who Were Self-Taught" to find many more. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
- anthomtb 5y ago
  I think you missed the main point of the comment to which you were replying. You shouldn’t have to spend months living in tents, working part time, to develop an in-demand skill. In other words, in-training software developers aren’t supposed to suffer. Artists, maybe they are supposed to be wealthy or do some suffering. (I’m speaking highly ideologically, of course).
  - vesuvianvenus 5y ago
    I don't recommend reasoning from a position of exercising one's ideology. "You shouldn’t have to spend months living in tents, working part time, to develop an in-demand skill." One has to develop in-demand skills to participate in the economy, and to therefore have a reasonable degree of assurance they can financially depend on themselves. Some folks might have savings or family help, others might have to camp in woods for a few months. No one should expect handouts. In some cases, people make mistakes that result in going broke financially. I can't claim that they should be shielded from consequences, I certainly can't shield them, nor do I expect taxes to be used to shield them. And, no one can force such a person to develop skills. Take me: I made the mistake of not using college wisely-- I studied liberal arts. Later, I lived in a tent while building my IT skills. In large part I lived in the tent so I wouldn't have to work 40 hours/week in front of a computer, just to come home to sit and try to learn to become a web app developer after work. That would be terribly unhealthy mentally and physically. There's no solution (in my opinion) except to accept accountability for ones' career development. See, you've brought up that WEALTH leads to different outcomes. But guess what-- So does EFFORT. You can't force a person to put in the effort into a career. Even if you give them money, they still might not put in effort (example: trust fund kids)-- they have to do it for their self, from a place of intrinsic motivation. The recently common this anti-merit, neo-marxist, pro-identity political ideological stuff reminds me of just that: People forgetting the influence of Personal Accountability and Differences in Effort, on life outcomes. I'd suggest taking your ideology out of your reasoning and assessments. It might fog up or clog up those reasoning abilities.
- colinb 5y ago
  > Success is determined by many factors, but they include Strategy, Willpower, Resourcefulness, Willingness to fail. I believe you. I think the many factors also include dumb luck, in large measure. You didn't fall and break a leg. You didn't get food poisoning. Your laptop upon which you were learning all these valuable skills didn't die. You took the risk to fail, and succeeded. I congratulate you - really. What you did isn't a trivial thing. If you had failed maybe you'd still be smoking fish. (Though smoking fish might not be such a bad life - I have no useful experience in this matter). I contend that many more people who took a path like yours are still smoking fish than are well-employed programmers. So, your grit and determination notwithstanding, do you believe we should discard those who didn't make it to the soft-handed indoor work?
Zababa 5y ago
I don't think that's true these days. While we may not have that much more free time compared to our ancestors, we have access to way more things. There are wealth of free knowledge online, wealth of free tools to do digital painting, digital music and things like that. There are also more forms of art and expression than before. Art has never been so democratized. But living from your art is still hard, because you need an audiance. It's always easier to find someone that needs you first and then work for him (getting a "regular" job) than producing something for a public that you don't yet have. There's also the fact that lots of artists don't seem to want to do "things that don't scale" (in reference to http://paulgraham.com/ds.html http://paulgraham.com/ds.html). For example, I have a few friends that want to work in the film industry. A minority of them do things like film clips for not well known rappers, take pictures at weddings, stuff like that. The majority just try to make a film. The first group can get more experience this way, meet professionals, get connections, see if that fields is really what they like. The second can't, and don't even make money.

vesuvianvenus 5y ago

It's not "supposed to be" any way whatsoever-- Neither The Universe nor The Global Economy depend on human senses of fairness or opinions. >only the wealthy can afford to study the arts and be productive as an artist. "study", "afford", and "productive" to me sound vague and subjective. One needs only sources of knowledge (even if its simply experimentation), willpower, food, and water, in order to download knowledge into their brain (and then to apply that knowledge by building small projects to demonstrate skills to future employers). Nor does a person need to be independently wealthy to take time off. I was in debt $3000 on a credit card by the time I arrived in Juneau, Alaska and within two weeks started working at $13/hr at a fish smokehouse, while camping on a nearby mountainside. And I had a janky 2003 toyota corolla (trip was in 2015). From where in your mind do you generate these fearful presuppositions? Success is determined by many factors, but they include Strategy, Willpower, Resourcefulness, Willingness to fail. And sure, you can throw preexisting wealth into there and weight it however you want, in a predictive equation. But ultimately that is taking the accountability away from the individual and presenting a false dichotomy ("a premise that erroneously limits what options are available.") [1]. There's no rulebook that says "You have to be wealthy to study art" or "You have to pay money to study art" or "You can't take time off to study <thing>." You definitely can. You can live in a tent, you can use your company's lunchroom for breakfast and lunch, and cook dinner on your camping stove. You can find public bathroom facilities. All of this can be done. Is it inconvenient? Does it require sacrifice? Hence one should do so strategically, and only for goals with high ROI (such as investing in yourself by building skills that are in high demand). ____________ Heck, Wealth and Art is a conversation all its own. The value of artists and art is different in different cultures. And the utility of art, in most cases, is very low. Hence it is a "luxury pursuit" that even primitive tribes engaged in back in prehistory-- when they had the "luxury" of some ... "time off" :) Lastly, just using basic reasoning, I ask you this: Has Art not existed before wealth? Are art and poverty mutually exclusive? I think your argument is lacking, in addressing these two questions, especially given the amount of artists (especially in music) who arise from impoverished conditions. I would also encourage you to do some research on artists from unconvential backgrounds. Such as former boxer and world-renowned architect Tadao Ando. Do a quick online search for "Famous Artists Who Were Self-Taught" to find many more. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

anthomtb 5y ago
I think you missed the main point of the comment to which you were replying. You shouldn’t have to spend months living in tents, working part time, to develop an in-demand skill. In other words, in-training software developers aren’t supposed to suffer. Artists, maybe they are supposed to be wealthy or do some suffering. (I’m speaking highly ideologically, of course).
- vesuvianvenus 5y ago
  I don't recommend reasoning from a position of exercising one's ideology. "You shouldn’t have to spend months living in tents, working part time, to develop an in-demand skill." One has to develop in-demand skills to participate in the economy, and to therefore have a reasonable degree of assurance they can financially depend on themselves. Some folks might have savings or family help, others might have to camp in woods for a few months. No one should expect handouts. In some cases, people make mistakes that result in going broke financially. I can't claim that they should be shielded from consequences, I certainly can't shield them, nor do I expect taxes to be used to shield them. And, no one can force such a person to develop skills. Take me: I made the mistake of not using college wisely-- I studied liberal arts. Later, I lived in a tent while building my IT skills. In large part I lived in the tent so I wouldn't have to work 40 hours/week in front of a computer, just to come home to sit and try to learn to become a web app developer after work. That would be terribly unhealthy mentally and physically. There's no solution (in my opinion) except to accept accountability for ones' career development. See, you've brought up that WEALTH leads to different outcomes. But guess what-- So does EFFORT. You can't force a person to put in the effort into a career. Even if you give them money, they still might not put in effort (example: trust fund kids)-- they have to do it for their self, from a place of intrinsic motivation. The recently common this anti-merit, neo-marxist, pro-identity political ideological stuff reminds me of just that: People forgetting the influence of Personal Accountability and Differences in Effort, on life outcomes. I'd suggest taking your ideology out of your reasoning and assessments. It might fog up or clog up those reasoning abilities.
colinb 5y ago
> Success is determined by many factors, but they include Strategy, Willpower, Resourcefulness, Willingness to fail. I believe you. I think the many factors also include dumb luck, in large measure. You didn't fall and break a leg. You didn't get food poisoning. Your laptop upon which you were learning all these valuable skills didn't die. You took the risk to fail, and succeeded. I congratulate you - really. What you did isn't a trivial thing. If you had failed maybe you'd still be smoking fish. (Though smoking fish might not be such a bad life - I have no useful experience in this matter). I contend that many more people who took a path like yours are still smoking fish than are well-employed programmers. So, your grit and determination notwithstanding, do you believe we should discard those who didn't make it to the soft-handed indoor work?

Zababa 5y ago

I don't think that's true these days. While we may not have that much more free time compared to our ancestors, we have access to way more things. There are wealth of free knowledge online, wealth of free tools to do digital painting, digital music and things like that. There are also more forms of art and expression than before. Art has never been so democratized. But living from your art is still hard, because you need an audiance. It's always easier to find someone that needs you first and then work for him (getting a "regular" job) than producing something for a public that you don't yet have. There's also the fact that lots of artists don't seem to want to do "things that don't scale" (in reference to http://paulgraham.com/ds.html http://paulgraham.com/ds.html). For example, I have a few friends that want to work in the film industry. A minority of them do things like film clips for not well known rappers, take pictures at weddings, stuff like that. The majority just try to make a film. The first group can get more experience this way, meet professionals, get connections, see if that fields is really what they like. The second can't, and don't even make money.