4 ms·

There definitely is a lot of creating going on but how much of it is really worthwhile? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I can make a

There definitely is a lot of creating going on but how much of it is really worthwhile? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I can make a turkey by tracing my hand. Do you really want to see it though? A hundred or so years ago we had Picasso. Now we have LOLCats. I doubt people in the future will hold up our blogs, status updates, and pictures with funny captions as examples of the great achievements from the past. More art isn't necessarily a good thing. Turning up the noise in the signal to noise ratio never helps anyone. It's a fine line we're walking here. I don't want to defend the copyright lobby but I'm not ready to say all this new "art" is good for culture either.

Zirro 15y ago
Saying that everything the common man is able to create today is "LOLCats" is just as bad as the "culture will die if we remove copyright"-argument. Good things, works of art, survive. Those LOLCats will still be there in the future, sure, and some people may even appreciate them. But for those who don't, filtering out the "simple" stuff shouldn't be an issue. The music I've been listening to all day has been produced by people who love what they're doing. They don't want your money. For them, it's enough that you take time and listen to their music. That's why they distribute it for free. And I can tell you that out of the things created by teenagers today, there are things I will appreciate just as much, or even more, in 50 years. That's more than enough to make them art to me.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  You mention money. Why is it important that it's free? Is there something wrong with trying to be paid for your work? I don't totally agree that artists should be thought of in the same way entrepreneurs are. Saying that the person who wrote a song shouldn't be able to stop people from sharing it is like saying Samsung should be able to install iOS on a tablet and apple should find a different way to monetize their platform. And as for culture, well culture is created by all of us. You or I or the next guy may have good taste but that doesn't mean the majority do. So when this ridiculous amount of creation goes on that means there will be far more crap than gems and with so much crap to wade through eventually it'll be lost and Lolcats will be considered culture and it'll be a sad day for culture. I'd like to believe that good things survive, I really do but that seems too optimistic to me. The music you've discovered wont be considered part of the culture of the future. Lady Gaga will. That's just what happens when there's so much to choose from.
  - klez 15y ago
    Do you really believe that crap wasn't produced in the past too? And please, why would lady gaga be considered part of the culture? When you think about the 1700s do you remember Mozart or popular music? Because Lady Gaga is popular music. Mozart is not. The fact that something is popular now, doesn't mean it will be in the future. And, as the masses didn't listen to Mozart at that time, we don't listen to contemporary music (I mean what in the future would be considered the 'classical music' of our time).
    - griftah 15y ago
      Mozart was very popular.
Natsu 15y ago
> A hundred or so years ago we had Picasso. Now we have LOLCats. Survivorship bias. We just forgot about all the crap back then because nobody bothered to save many copies of it and the bad works have been forgotten, if not lost. LOLCats will probably go the way of AYBABTU and Chuck Norris jokes one of these days. And later people will look back and only remember things like the Grey Album instead. That's the same way people nowadays look back at 60s music with so much nostalgia, thinking of the Beatles and not, for example, "They're Coming to Take Me Away" by Napoleon the IV.

Zirro 15y ago

Saying that everything the common man is able to create today is "LOLCats" is just as bad as the "culture will die if we remove copyright"-argument. Good things, works of art, survive. Those LOLCats will still be there in the future, sure, and some people may even appreciate them. But for those who don't, filtering out the "simple" stuff shouldn't be an issue. The music I've been listening to all day has been produced by people who love what they're doing. They don't want your money. For them, it's enough that you take time and listen to their music. That's why they distribute it for free. And I can tell you that out of the things created by teenagers today, there are things I will appreciate just as much, or even more, in 50 years. That's more than enough to make them art to me.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
You mention money. Why is it important that it's free? Is there something wrong with trying to be paid for your work? I don't totally agree that artists should be thought of in the same way entrepreneurs are. Saying that the person who wrote a song shouldn't be able to stop people from sharing it is like saying Samsung should be able to install iOS on a tablet and apple should find a different way to monetize their platform. And as for culture, well culture is created by all of us. You or I or the next guy may have good taste but that doesn't mean the majority do. So when this ridiculous amount of creation goes on that means there will be far more crap than gems and with so much crap to wade through eventually it'll be lost and Lolcats will be considered culture and it'll be a sad day for culture. I'd like to believe that good things survive, I really do but that seems too optimistic to me. The music you've discovered wont be considered part of the culture of the future. Lady Gaga will. That's just what happens when there's so much to choose from.
- klez 15y ago
  Do you really believe that crap wasn't produced in the past too? And please, why would lady gaga be considered part of the culture? When you think about the 1700s do you remember Mozart or popular music? Because Lady Gaga is popular music. Mozart is not. The fact that something is popular now, doesn't mean it will be in the future. And, as the masses didn't listen to Mozart at that time, we don't listen to contemporary music (I mean what in the future would be considered the 'classical music' of our time).
  - griftah 15y ago
    Mozart was very popular.

Natsu 15y ago

> A hundred or so years ago we had Picasso. Now we have LOLCats. Survivorship bias. We just forgot about all the crap back then because nobody bothered to save many copies of it and the bad works have been forgotten, if not lost. LOLCats will probably go the way of AYBABTU and Chuck Norris jokes one of these days. And later people will look back and only remember things like the Grey Album instead. That's the same way people nowadays look back at 60s music with so much nostalgia, thinking of the Beatles and not, for example, "They're Coming to Take Me Away" by Napoleon the IV.