3 ms·

> 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

by 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.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > I never said there is no value You said "artists don't serve any valuable role in society". > Plenty of people think the internet as it exists today is actually a net negative for humanity I've never seen anyone say that. To me it's obviously false; the Internet has enabled huge wealth creation.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        >You said "artists don't serve any valuable role in society". Just because artists don't serve any valuable role doesn't mean they have no value. A cheap keyboard or a free piece of software isn't valuable, but they nonetheless have some value. >I've never seen anyone say that. To me it's obviously false; the Internet has enabled huge wealth creation. Most of the sentiment is based around the ever increasingly "cable TV" nature of the internet as well as the scientifically demonstrated negative effects of social media.
        pdonis 2y ago
        > A cheap keyboard or a free piece of software isn't valuable, but they nonetheless have some value. I find your use of language here very confusing. > the ever increasingly "cable TV" nature of the internet But you don't have to use those particular Internet channels in order to use the Internet. The Internet carries lots of other traffic. One of the nice things about the Internet as compared with previous communication media is how easy it is to just ignore what you don't like. > as well as the scientifically demonstrated negative effects of social media Those effects have been around as long as humans have, and pandering to the worst instincts of people has always been a way for cheap grifters to gain money and notoriety. But it only works because people choose to give in to those worst instincts. You can't fix human nature by discarding useful tools because some people misuse them.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        >I find your use of language here very confusing. "Valuable" as in how most people use the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valuable https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valuable >2 >a : having desirable or esteemed characteristics or qualities; valuable friendships >b : of great use or service; valuable advice Artists do not provide valuable work, but doesn't mean their work has no value. Not providing valuable work simply means their work is of (very) low value. ---------- >But you don't have to use those particular Internet channels in order to use the Internet. There has been a substantial centralization and consolidation of the internet to varying degrees and for better or worse, both on the front and backends. The frontend centralization in particular is not being received well in recent times. >Those effects have been around as long as humans have, ... You can't fix human nature by discarding useful tools because some people misuse them. I agree.

by pdonis 2y ago

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.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > I never said there is no value You said "artists don't serve any valuable role in society". > Plenty of people think the internet as it exists today is actually a net negative for humanity I've never seen anyone say that. To me it's obviously false; the Internet has enabled huge wealth creation.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >You said "artists don't serve any valuable role in society". Just because artists don't serve any valuable role doesn't mean they have no value. A cheap keyboard or a free piece of software isn't valuable, but they nonetheless have some value. >I've never seen anyone say that. To me it's obviously false; the Internet has enabled huge wealth creation. Most of the sentiment is based around the ever increasingly "cable TV" nature of the internet as well as the scientifically demonstrated negative effects of social media.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > A cheap keyboard or a free piece of software isn't valuable, but they nonetheless have some value. I find your use of language here very confusing. > the ever increasingly "cable TV" nature of the internet But you don't have to use those particular Internet channels in order to use the Internet. The Internet carries lots of other traffic. One of the nice things about the Internet as compared with previous communication media is how easy it is to just ignore what you don't like. > as well as the scientifically demonstrated negative effects of social media Those effects have been around as long as humans have, and pandering to the worst instincts of people has always been a way for cheap grifters to gain money and notoriety. But it only works because people choose to give in to those worst instincts. You can't fix human nature by discarding useful tools because some people misuse them.
        Dalewyn 2y ago
        >I find your use of language here very confusing. "Valuable" as in how most people use the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valuable https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/valuable >2 >a : having desirable or esteemed characteristics or qualities; valuable friendships >b : of great use or service; valuable advice Artists do not provide valuable work, but doesn't mean their work has no value. Not providing valuable work simply means their work is of (very) low value. ---------- >But you don't have to use those particular Internet channels in order to use the Internet. There has been a substantial centralization and consolidation of the internet to varying degrees and for better or worse, both on the front and backends. The frontend centralization in particular is not being received well in recent times. >Those effects have been around as long as humans have, ... You can't fix human nature by discarding useful tools because some people misuse them. I agree.