4 ms·
Maybe I see things in simple terms. But I think of artists as people who use their creative talent to entertain others (by exciting/relaxing/engaging/uplifting/
by Tycho 15y ago
Maybe I see things in simple terms. But I think of artists as people who use their creative talent to entertain others (by exciting/relaxing/engaging/uplifting/etc them) in exchange for payment. And I see all these non-artists 'excited' about the 'potential' to 'express' and 'communicate ideas to the whole world' without the 'shackles' of commercial enterprise as basically being people, who care more about the spare change in their pocket than they do about artists, masquerading as new millennium hippies.
- blhack 15y agoI'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that artists [or people] creating art for non-commercial purposes aren't really artists? That seems a little silly to me
- Tycho 15y agoNo, but let's just say that it's like anything else, eg. being a programmer. Doing art for a living isn't some transcendent activity compared to making your living doing any other sort of job. If you're good, people will pay you; if you do it for free, people will take it. If you're bad, people wont pay you any attention (or money).
- r0s 15y agoAh, the myth of meritocracy. Not in the art world, where tastes are subjective in extreme. Life ain't fair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
- blhack 15y ago<sarcasm> Nobody ever created anything good without being paid for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux </sarcasm>
- Tycho 15y agoThat was nowhere in my statement.