4 ms·

I am very skeptical of the criteria for which the author evaluates a successful career. You cannot evaluate the success of an artist in the same way as an engi

I am very skeptical of the criteria for which the author evaluates a successful career. You cannot evaluate the success of an artist in the same way as an engineer. First, Wages are an extremely inadequate measure for the contribution art makes to society. And looking at "innovations that drive economic growth" as a measure of the collective success of college graduates takes a seriously narrow view of the contributions necessary to foster a healthy economy.

anamax 15y ago
> First, Wages are an extremely inadequate measure for the contribution art makes to society. While wages may not be the right measure, the amount of money that people are willing to pay seems somewhat useful. Most "art" is crap and society would be better off if most "artists" were grocery baggers instead. (No, I'm not harshing on grocery baggers - I'm just picking a job that "artists" look down on.) Yes, that might affect their self-esteem, but maybe they'll learn the dignity of honest work.
- joe8756438 15y ago
  Making art is not honest work?
  - anamax 15y ago
    > Making art is not honest work? Making crap art isn't.
    - Apocryphon 15y ago
      Saying that the majority of "art" is crap is a very subjective opinion.
      - anamax 15y ago
        Are you claiming that there's an objective definition of "good art"? If so, let's see it. In any event, "subjective" doesn't imply wrong. Are you claiming that a majority of art is not crap? Does your argument avoid the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?
        Apocryphon 15y ago
        How can you claim that the majority of art as crap? Did you do a survey? What is your definition of art?
      - anamax 15y ago
        Are you claiming that there's an objective definition of "good art"? If so, let's see it. In any event, "subjective" doesn't imply wrong. Are you claiming that a majority of art is not crap? Does your argument avoid the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  Then who would make the art assets for all of our Web 2.0 sites and mobile apps?

anamax 15y ago

> First, Wages are an extremely inadequate measure for the contribution art makes to society. While wages may not be the right measure, the amount of money that people are willing to pay seems somewhat useful. Most "art" is crap and society would be better off if most "artists" were grocery baggers instead. (No, I'm not harshing on grocery baggers - I'm just picking a job that "artists" look down on.) Yes, that might affect their self-esteem, but maybe they'll learn the dignity of honest work.

joe8756438 15y ago
Making art is not honest work?
- anamax 15y ago
  > Making art is not honest work? Making crap art isn't.
  - Apocryphon 15y ago
    Saying that the majority of "art" is crap is a very subjective opinion.
    - anamax 15y ago
      Are you claiming that there's an objective definition of "good art"? If so, let's see it. In any event, "subjective" doesn't imply wrong. Are you claiming that a majority of art is not crap? Does your argument avoid the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?
      - Apocryphon 15y ago
        How can you claim that the majority of art as crap? Did you do a survey? What is your definition of art?
    - anamax 15y ago
      Are you claiming that there's an objective definition of "good art"? If so, let's see it. In any event, "subjective" doesn't imply wrong. Are you claiming that a majority of art is not crap? Does your argument avoid the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?
Apocryphon 15y ago
Then who would make the art assets for all of our Web 2.0 sites and mobile apps?