4 ms·

>Why should non-creatives go along with this? We shouldn't. Art has historically been vastly overvalued and I like that its perceived/demanded value has been s

>Why should non-creatives go along with this? We shouldn't. Art has historically been vastly overvalued and I like that its perceived/demanded value has been sharply declining over the past several decades and especially now with the advent of "AI". I'm sorry if anyone reading this is an artist and I just twisted your pantaloons, but artists don't serve any valuable role in society. Artists exist strictly because society can afford to waste surplus time and resources on frivolous occupations, art is an intangible luxury.

pfdietz 2y ago
Indeed. To a large extent, art was a means of displaying your social status, a way of demonstrating your wealth and buffing your ego. It was used as a justification for colonialism and imperialism. Our society is so advanced; look at the art it produces; obviously we're superior so we should dictate what others do.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Right, right, nobody but the social elites ever wanted to decorate anything, be entertained, or engage in cultural practices for mere enjoyment. Folk music? Dancing? mere impositions of social organization. These people think they're having fun, but that's because they lack true consciousness.
jfengel 2y ago
I'd read this but I'm too busy playing video games. I'll read it after I watch this movie.
MourYother 2y ago
I don't think you realize what a hellscape the world without art would be.
- wincy 2y ago
  We’d go outside? Derive pleasure from being around people near us instead of seeking external validation and watching shows crafted by Hollywood midwits? Maybe we’d have more hobbies and do sports?
  - grugagag 2y ago
    Art isn’t keeping you inside, actually technology has made our lives more comfortable indoors, not that it’s always a bad thing. A world without art would be an industrial world where things only have utility and what the look like does not matter. Think everything being painted the same drab color because it’s efficient and cheap. Buildings having the same architecture, think people wearing the same clothes, same colors even because who would care about esthetics?
- SR2Z 2y ago
  Humans create art like snails exude slime. Not getting paid for art doesn't mean no art is gonna get made.
nope1000 2y ago
There is no value in music, books, movies, video games? Or did you just think about paintings?
- pjmorris 2y ago
  I'd add all software to video games; despite all the optimization and mechanization it remains a creative endeavor.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    Programming is only art when the goal is creativity, like in creative mechanics for video games. It isn't art when it is just to make a product work, just like most people don't consider designers artists. There is an aspect of art to it, but there is an aspect of art to most engineering and development things, programming is as much an art as pretty much any other white collar job.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >There is no value in music, books, movies, video games? No. When push comes to shove and society can't afford luxuries for one reason or another, they are among the first things thrown out for a greater (valuable) cause with no tangible losses sustained.
vunderba 2y ago
Just a clarification, art has never been overvalued historically. In point of fact, artisans and musicians were considered a fairly lower class as a mere trade within the medieval time period outside of a few rockstars such as Beethoven and Liszt (later in the 18th and 19th centuries).
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  artists were not lower class compared to the vast majority of the population and that generally remains true.
zogrodea 2y ago
I think you would enjoy reading this which seems to agree with you somewhat. https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1cCymY7GRLn-PDwh948WClhCQo3rucgVcUlaHOiL4Mtk/mobilebasic?pli=1 https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1cCymY7GRLn-PDwh948WC...
- financltravsty 2y ago
  Refreshing. Where can I find more -- do you know who the author is and title of this work? Edit: Found it. The Principles of Art by Robin George Collingwood
pjmorris 2y ago
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." - John Adams, 2nd US President
pdonis 2y ago
> artists don't serve any valuable role in society I assume then that you don't listen to any music, don't watch TV or movies, don't read any books, don't have any pictures on your walls, live in a concrete box with no artistic design applied, and so on? In other words, that you get no value from art in any form?
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >In other words, that you get no value from art in any form? No value I could not do without, no. Art is a luxury, it's not strictly necessary for living. As such, the real inherent value of art will always be extremely low.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > No value I could not do without You're quibbling. If you aren't doing without it, then it has value. > Art is a luxury, it's not strictly necessary for living. Neither is the conversation we're having now, nor the medium in which we are having it. Yet I don't think anyone would say the Internet, or even this website, has no value. The vast majority of the wealth currently on this planet is "not strictly necessary for living". But "living" is more than just bare subsistence. People value quality of life, and art is a major contribution to many people's quality of life. That's why people are willing to pay significant amounts of money for it.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >You're quibbling. If you aren't doing without it, then it has value. I never said there is no value, I'm saying art has low value (and thus no value I couldn't do without) compared to actually tangible, important things and that it has been overvalued to an extreme until recent decades when more supply (more artists) and better efficiency (digital technologies, "AI") finally started to slash perceived value. >Neither is the conversation we're having now, nor the medium in which we are having it. Yet I don't think anyone would say the Internet, or even this website, has no value. Plenty of people think the internet as it exists today is actually a net negative for humanity, let alone low value. While I don't agree to that extent, I do agree with a general notion that the internet is overvalued. Though not quite to what art has been, since the internet is still a communication tool with practical purposes.
ben_w 2y ago
I think it's not that it has historically been overvalued, so much as the valuation wired into us hasn't fully accounted for the consequences of mass reproduction. Before the printing press, a poet was valued and valuable; today, the feeling of valuation remains, but instead of each village of 160 looking after their own poets and bards, it's a power-law distribution where Taylor Swift and J. K. Rowling are worth hundreds of millions to billions while the person at the end of the top 100 best-seller lists absolutely needs a second job.
polotics 2y ago
May I propose that you find out why you're wrong about the usefulness of art, by looking for the talk by Brian Eno where he explains it? https://youtu.be/GvHY5BFgniw?si=-JbjYVjY38uYQpog https://youtu.be/GvHY5BFgniw?si=-JbjYVjY38uYQpog
tom-_- 2y ago
If art has little value, why is the annual revenue for the global entertainment industry over $2 trillion? No one is being forced to pay for a Netflix subscription. The markets have spoken and have assigned it a large value. Whether you view art as frivolous is subjective, the numbers aren't on your side.

pfdietz 2y ago

Indeed. To a large extent, art was a means of displaying your social status, a way of demonstrating your wealth and buffing your ego. It was used as a justification for colonialism and imperialism. Our society is so advanced; look at the art it produces; obviously we're superior so we should dictate what others do.

anigbrowl 2y ago
Right, right, nobody but the social elites ever wanted to decorate anything, be entertained, or engage in cultural practices for mere enjoyment. Folk music? Dancing? mere impositions of social organization. These people think they're having fun, but that's because they lack true consciousness.

jfengel 2y ago

I'd read this but I'm too busy playing video games. I'll read it after I watch this movie.

MourYother 2y ago

I don't think you realize what a hellscape the world without art would be.

wincy 2y ago
We’d go outside? Derive pleasure from being around people near us instead of seeking external validation and watching shows crafted by Hollywood midwits? Maybe we’d have more hobbies and do sports?
- grugagag 2y ago
  Art isn’t keeping you inside, actually technology has made our lives more comfortable indoors, not that it’s always a bad thing. A world without art would be an industrial world where things only have utility and what the look like does not matter. Think everything being painted the same drab color because it’s efficient and cheap. Buildings having the same architecture, think people wearing the same clothes, same colors even because who would care about esthetics?
SR2Z 2y ago
Humans create art like snails exude slime. Not getting paid for art doesn't mean no art is gonna get made.

nope1000 2y ago

There is no value in music, books, movies, video games? Or did you just think about paintings?

pjmorris 2y ago
I'd add all software to video games; despite all the optimization and mechanization it remains a creative endeavor.
- Jensson 2y ago
  Programming is only art when the goal is creativity, like in creative mechanics for video games. It isn't art when it is just to make a product work, just like most people don't consider designers artists. There is an aspect of art to it, but there is an aspect of art to most engineering and development things, programming is as much an art as pretty much any other white collar job.
Dalewyn 2y ago
>There is no value in music, books, movies, video games? No. When push comes to shove and society can't afford luxuries for one reason or another, they are among the first things thrown out for a greater (valuable) cause with no tangible losses sustained.

vunderba 2y ago

Just a clarification, art has never been overvalued historically. In point of fact, artisans and musicians were considered a fairly lower class as a mere trade within the medieval time period outside of a few rockstars such as Beethoven and Liszt (later in the 18th and 19th centuries).

whimsicalism 2y ago
artists were not lower class compared to the vast majority of the population and that generally remains true.

zogrodea 2y ago

I think you would enjoy reading this which seems to agree with you somewhat. https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1cCymY7GRLn-PDwh948WClhCQo3rucgVcUlaHOiL4Mtk/mobilebasic?pli=1 https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1cCymY7GRLn-PDwh948WC...

financltravsty 2y ago
Refreshing. Where can I find more -- do you know who the author is and title of this work? Edit: Found it. The Principles of Art by Robin George Collingwood

pjmorris 2y ago

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." - John Adams, 2nd US President

pdonis 2y ago

> artists don't serve any valuable role in society I assume then that you don't listen to any music, don't watch TV or movies, don't read any books, don't have any pictures on your walls, live in a concrete box with no artistic design applied, and so on? In other words, that you get no value from art in any form?

Dalewyn 2y ago
>In other words, that you get no value from art in any form? No value I could not do without, no. Art is a luxury, it's not strictly necessary for living. As such, the real inherent value of art will always be extremely low.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > No value I could not do without You're quibbling. If you aren't doing without it, then it has value. > Art is a luxury, it's not strictly necessary for living. Neither is the conversation we're having now, nor the medium in which we are having it. Yet I don't think anyone would say the Internet, or even this website, has no value. The vast majority of the wealth currently on this planet is "not strictly necessary for living". But "living" is more than just bare subsistence. People value quality of life, and art is a major contribution to many people's quality of life. That's why people are willing to pay significant amounts of money for it.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >You're quibbling. If you aren't doing without it, then it has value. I never said there is no value, I'm saying art has low value (and thus no value I couldn't do without) compared to actually tangible, important things and that it has been overvalued to an extreme until recent decades when more supply (more artists) and better efficiency (digital technologies, "AI") finally started to slash perceived value. >Neither is the conversation we're having now, nor the medium in which we are having it. Yet I don't think anyone would say the Internet, or even this website, has no value. Plenty of people think the internet as it exists today is actually a net negative for humanity, let alone low value. While I don't agree to that extent, I do agree with a general notion that the internet is overvalued. Though not quite to what art has been, since the internet is still a communication tool with practical purposes.

ben_w 2y ago

I think it's not that it has historically been overvalued, so much as the valuation wired into us hasn't fully accounted for the consequences of mass reproduction. Before the printing press, a poet was valued and valuable; today, the feeling of valuation remains, but instead of each village of 160 looking after their own poets and bards, it's a power-law distribution where Taylor Swift and J. K. Rowling are worth hundreds of millions to billions while the person at the end of the top 100 best-seller lists absolutely needs a second job.

polotics 2y ago

May I propose that you find out why you're wrong about the usefulness of art, by looking for the talk by Brian Eno where he explains it? https://youtu.be/GvHY5BFgniw?si=-JbjYVjY38uYQpog https://youtu.be/GvHY5BFgniw?si=-JbjYVjY38uYQpog

tom-_- 2y ago

If art has little value, why is the annual revenue for the global entertainment industry over $2 trillion? No one is being forced to pay for a Netflix subscription. The markets have spoken and have assigned it a large value. Whether you view art as frivolous is subjective, the numbers aren't on your side.