3 ms·
Looking at the Middle Ages, there were basically three ways for "artists" to earn a living. There were the traveling artists who moved from noble court to nobl
by sdoering 5y ago
Looking at the Middle Ages, there were basically three ways for "artists" to earn a living.
There were the traveling artists who moved from noble court to noble court. And there were the artists who were employed (at least temporarily) at a court.
Especially later, in large cities, there were also artists whose reputation made it possible to have their own workshop and work from there.
The medieval, especially the early and high medieval nobles considered patronage as an essential element of their own status presentation. One was someone if one could afford to patronize/pay for art.
The benefit of patronizing art was both in the present (I show what I can afford) and in the future (I secure the memory of myself after my death).
And much of that, perhaps unfortunately not as a general value in entrepreneurship today, I find structurally in dealing with open source funding.
There are the "traveling artists" who live on the hope of (irregular) donations. There are the "employed artists" at court and there are those with their own place of work.
So open source projects/maintainers that have to live from many (small and large) donors. Projects/Maintainers that are sponsored/paid by (big) companies. And there are the projects that have a second (often hosted versions and services around the OS project) as a source of income.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
- prepend 5y agoAnd of course there were artists who didn’t earn a living from their art, but still made art. Wonderfully, there is now technology that makes it near zero cost to replicate their art and make infinite copies. Thus allowing great art to be created outside of commercial models. Imagine if all the shower singing in the world could mix together and self arrange into symphonies that anyone could search and listen to for free. From shower singers who choose to share their songs, of course.
- auggierose 5y agoNo thank you, I don't need any shower singing art. Art costs. Great art costs a lot. You might not be willing to pay the price for great art, but somebody is paying that price. Even if it is just the artist.
- throwmeariver1 5y agoA lot of great art is free what you mean is the art perceived as "expensive" by the art industry. Cisco vs OpenSource...
- auggierose 5y agoNo, what I mean is that producing great art usually has a high cost. A particular work of art might have been created just in the spur of a moment, but the artist getting to that point usually had a cost, too. Consuming art often is free indeed, but this should not be confused with the cost of producing it, and I had the feeling that the comment I originally answered to did just that.
- throwmeariver1 5y agoNo you just believe art must have a value either from the artists skillset or materials and this is just not true at all.
- auggierose 5y agoWe seem to talk past each other. That's ok.
- yesenadam 5y agoYou could listen to what auggierose is saying instead of just repeatedly telling him what he really means. Then this exchange might have value.
- prepend 5y agoNot all Great art costs a lot. Some does, but it’s not exclusive. Take a look at spontaneous graffiti murals. I’ve seen some amazing ones that were made with stolen paint. The artist used their time because they love the art. Just like many open source developers donate their time and there are many great projects that don’t cost. But, of course, some do.
- joshuapoddoku 5y ago