4 ms·

I think he's disagreeing with the arbitrariness of where you're drawing lines to make your argument sound more reasonable. And he's free to argue his way. Mass

I think he's disagreeing with the arbitrariness of where you're drawing lines to make your argument sound more reasonable. And he's free to argue his way. Mass production already has a definition and I'm pretty sure significant manual work goes into each copy. But this is beside the point. Regardless of how many copies are made, the creativity and ingenuity that went into the first one alone makes it something marvellous. Jaquet-Droz only made one handwriting automaton boy. But if he made 150 it would still be a contribution to human endeavour and I'm glad for that.

Dylan16807 4y ago
Manual work goes into each copy, manual artistry less so. So it's true that I should classify batches of 100+ and mass production quite differently. Along with pure one-offs and batches under five. But my original point still applies. I think these different quantities should be treated quite differently in terms of how art can be very expensive. In your other comment you said: Finally, quantity is irrelevant to whether something is classified as art. My point was that the fact that it was created at all is meaningful and valuable. It's art, very good art, but it's also far short of 150 artistically different watches. Almost everything is art at some level, but the amount that the artistry should affect price depends on production quantities and methods. Most of the artistry here is one piece.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  But all this missed the point. I like that there are artists making these things. If they go on to be copied X times so that it can provide a living wage to the original artists and designers, then in my opinion it's money well spent, even if some of it goes to the (also talented) machinists and assemblers. I also think it's good that it's accessible to 150 people who maybe appreciate the artistry that went into it, as opposed to 1 super rich guy who maybe doesn't. All I'm saying is charity is really important, arguably more so than art, but when they're created with skill and artistry; appreciated and not just consumed conspicuously as wealth/status objects, such things have value too.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    So I generally agree with all this. But in my opinion there's a limit to how much money you can justify with "it's art". If you're making 150 of something, you shouldn't be justifying a particularly huge price with it being art. If it really cost that much, and the price of making just one would have been ridiculously huge, then there is a point where I'd say the whole project is not worth it, is not making the world a better place. (Note: I am not stating any opinion on where this watch is relative to that level.) Or to restate and elaborate on my original point: 99% of the time, it's fine to use art as a reason to buy something. You don't always have to be donating every dollar to charities. But for any level of justification you want to reach for the price of a piece of art, the dollar amount that fits under "justified" depends on how many copies are being made.

Dylan16807 4y ago

Manual work goes into each copy, manual artistry less so. So it's true that I should classify batches of 100+ and mass production quite differently. Along with pure one-offs and batches under five. But my original point still applies. I think these different quantities should be treated quite differently in terms of how art can be very expensive. In your other comment you said: Finally, quantity is irrelevant to whether something is classified as art. My point was that the fact that it was created at all is meaningful and valuable. It's art, very good art, but it's also far short of 150 artistically different watches. Almost everything is art at some level, but the amount that the artistry should affect price depends on production quantities and methods. Most of the artistry here is one piece.

Sporktacular 4y ago
But all this missed the point. I like that there are artists making these things. If they go on to be copied X times so that it can provide a living wage to the original artists and designers, then in my opinion it's money well spent, even if some of it goes to the (also talented) machinists and assemblers. I also think it's good that it's accessible to 150 people who maybe appreciate the artistry that went into it, as opposed to 1 super rich guy who maybe doesn't. All I'm saying is charity is really important, arguably more so than art, but when they're created with skill and artistry; appreciated and not just consumed conspicuously as wealth/status objects, such things have value too.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  So I generally agree with all this. But in my opinion there's a limit to how much money you can justify with "it's art". If you're making 150 of something, you shouldn't be justifying a particularly huge price with it being art. If it really cost that much, and the price of making just one would have been ridiculously huge, then there is a point where I'd say the whole project is not worth it, is not making the world a better place. (Note: I am not stating any opinion on where this watch is relative to that level.) Or to restate and elaborate on my original point: 99% of the time, it's fine to use art as a reason to buy something. You don't always have to be donating every dollar to charities. But for any level of justification you want to reach for the price of a piece of art, the dollar amount that fits under "justified" depends on how many copies are being made.