3 ms·

> How does the author propose deciding _who_ gets to make art? I feel like the author makes it fairly clear: those with enough privilege. If the cost of living

> How does the author propose deciding _who_ gets to make art? I feel like the author makes it fairly clear: those with enough privilege. If the cost of living goes to zero, we'll have near-infinite art. If the cost of living goes to maximum we all starve to death. At very least, I was very much in love with a free-living artist who inspired me greatly in my 20s. I moved to San Francisco to hangout with her and her amazingly cool and smart friends - living on couches and doing art. I felt like a sell-out that I couldn't make it in that world and got a "real job". I found out later that she had several million dollars to her name in her early 20s. I somehow had missed the implication of her text "stopping by my dads house in the Marina, be there in a minute". When you find out that most free-living artists have financial backing - well, the rose-tinted glasses come off quick. That said, props to any actually desperate-artists out there. I tend to think it's a bit of a mythic trope, but I'm sure some do exist.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
danShumway 5y ago
> When you find out that most free-living artists have financial backing - well, the rose-tinted glasses come off quick. Maybe the issue there is taxation, not art? If we're going to get into a debate about people owing stuff to society, I think looking at estate taxes, property taxes, etc... is probably a lot more reasonable than getting mad at them for doing things they enjoy with their time. I think it's a very easy trap to fall into where we sometimes look at opulence/privilege and get mad at the good things that come out of that (life/job security, freedom to experiment, etc), rather than the consolidation of resources and wealth that enable those outcomes very selectively and that deny other people access to the same conditions. And there's lots of different life philosophies about how to deal with millionaires/billionaires from lots of different political perspectives, but in all of them from the most Capitalistic to the most Socialist, guilting people over not being passionate about charity blue-collar work is probably less helpful and less reasonable than guilting them over not paying back money (either through charity or taxes) into the systems and common social resources that are currently supporting them and their lifestyles. "I'm a millionaire, but I got a normal job so therefore I don't need to feel guilty", feels weird to me. That's not really practically changing anything about other people's conditions.
kiba 5y ago
Charles Darwin accomplished building a theory in comparatively luxury. Clearly, wealth can, if not always, enable great things.
- erulabs 5y ago
  Absolutely. But if Darwin had spent his life drawing pictures and showing them to no one - and if his entire generation did the same - we would not live in the modern world.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

danShumway 5y ago

> When you find out that most free-living artists have financial backing - well, the rose-tinted glasses come off quick. Maybe the issue there is taxation, not art? If we're going to get into a debate about people owing stuff to society, I think looking at estate taxes, property taxes, etc... is probably a lot more reasonable than getting mad at them for doing things they enjoy with their time. I think it's a very easy trap to fall into where we sometimes look at opulence/privilege and get mad at the good things that come out of that (life/job security, freedom to experiment, etc), rather than the consolidation of resources and wealth that enable those outcomes very selectively and that deny other people access to the same conditions. And there's lots of different life philosophies about how to deal with millionaires/billionaires from lots of different political perspectives, but in all of them from the most Capitalistic to the most Socialist, guilting people over not being passionate about charity blue-collar work is probably less helpful and less reasonable than guilting them over not paying back money (either through charity or taxes) into the systems and common social resources that are currently supporting them and their lifestyles. "I'm a millionaire, but I got a normal job so therefore I don't need to feel guilty", feels weird to me. That's not really practically changing anything about other people's conditions.

kiba 5y ago

Charles Darwin accomplished building a theory in comparatively luxury. Clearly, wealth can, if not always, enable great things.

erulabs 5y ago
Absolutely. But if Darwin had spent his life drawing pictures and showing them to no one - and if his entire generation did the same - we would not live in the modern world.