3 ms·

This is a very odd take and aggressive towards artists in a way that makes little sense. First, You’re arguing that rational labor input-output, the harder the

This is a very odd take and aggressive towards artists in a way that makes little sense. First, You’re arguing that rational labor input-output, the harder the better, and the resulting inputs it creates into a system, is the highest ideal or something. You’re missing that Art and various abstractions, to include the social sciences have played a major role in shaping history and our self identities for all of human existence (Homer, anyone?). When this missing started occurring is right around the ‘06 tech boom that put engineering and input output above all else, and by extension destroyed out the protected spaces artists could function in. Coincidently, that’s right around the time the world started to lose its mind by finding meaning making via their iPhones. This engineering-centric dismissal of everything that can’t be quantified is the cause of so many social issues. Your view was also directly present in the Soviet Union, fwiw. I’m not sure what artist insulted you or wherever this take comes form, but you’re really missing some key points of why Art and the resulting high minded artists have existed since the cavemen.

sershe 4y ago
I think the post is spot on. It's not really about how hard is the labor, it's specifically about value produced for others, for which "how much others are willing to pay you" is the best approximation we have. To me, an average artist/band/... is at best, like an average roofer in the world where there are more roofers than houses - they are unnecessary and should do something else, or admit that roofing or art is just a side hobby. At worst, an average artist/band/... (the kind that the GP mentions, and I've certainly met) is like a roofer insisting that their personal roof that they are building on the ground level over a sand pit is inherently noble. I think a better example is sports. On one hand, football players get paid a ton of money, by people who presumably consider it worthwhile, for "just playing a game once a week". On the other, imagine every relatively unimpressive rando on deviantart or whatever played football instead, on the same relatively unimpressive level. Do we need so many football players? Sure, they can do it as a hobby, but in terms of social value/making a living, we certainly don't.

sershe 4y ago

I think the post is spot on. It's not really about how hard is the labor, it's specifically about value produced for others, for which "how much others are willing to pay you" is the best approximation we have. To me, an average artist/band/... is at best, like an average roofer in the world where there are more roofers than houses - they are unnecessary and should do something else, or admit that roofing or art is just a side hobby. At worst, an average artist/band/... (the kind that the GP mentions, and I've certainly met) is like a roofer insisting that their personal roof that they are building on the ground level over a sand pit is inherently noble. I think a better example is sports. On one hand, football players get paid a ton of money, by people who presumably consider it worthwhile, for "just playing a game once a week". On the other, imagine every relatively unimpressive rando on deviantart or whatever played football instead, on the same relatively unimpressive level. Do we need so many football players? Sure, they can do it as a hobby, but in terms of social value/making a living, we certainly don't.