3 ms·

>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'

>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.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > how most people use the word I don't know about "most". The very first meaning (1 a) in your reference is "having monetary value", which is how I have been using the word. > Artists do not provide valuable work...their work is of (very) low value Maybe not in your subjective judgment (and both of the definitions you cited for "valuable" are subjective), but other people's subjective judgment might differ from yours. Many people pay significant sums of money for the work of artists. Maybe that doesn't make the art "valuable" in your eyes, but it apparently does in theirs. In any case, if you're going to talk about "society" as a whole, you can't just help yourself to your subjective judgment. The definition I just cited above of "valuable" is objective: people pay money for it. And people do pay money--in many cases significant sums, as I noted above--for art in our society, so I don't think you can say artists "do not provide valuable work" for society as a whole. Yes, if push comes to shove, people will stop buying art before they will stop buying, say, food, clothing, and shelter. But in such a hypothetical, society is much poorer, so people are forced to focus on bare subsistence. But I don't think anyone would say such a society had a lot of valuable things in it--indeed, it's precisely the fact that such a society doesn't have a lot of valuable things in it that makes it poor. A rich society has many more valuable things in it than just what is needed for bare subsistence; that's what makes it rich. And people generally prefer a rich society to a poor one. Art is one of those valuable things that people in rich societies like to have. Not everyone, but people's tastes differ, and one of the nice things about rich societies is that it's much easier for people to satisfy their particular tastes, even if they're not common.

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.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > how most people use the word I don't know about "most". The very first meaning (1 a) in your reference is "having monetary value", which is how I have been using the word. > Artists do not provide valuable work...their work is of (very) low value Maybe not in your subjective judgment (and both of the definitions you cited for "valuable" are subjective), but other people's subjective judgment might differ from yours. Many people pay significant sums of money for the work of artists. Maybe that doesn't make the art "valuable" in your eyes, but it apparently does in theirs. In any case, if you're going to talk about "society" as a whole, you can't just help yourself to your subjective judgment. The definition I just cited above of "valuable" is objective: people pay money for it. And people do pay money--in many cases significant sums, as I noted above--for art in our society, so I don't think you can say artists "do not provide valuable work" for society as a whole. Yes, if push comes to shove, people will stop buying art before they will stop buying, say, food, clothing, and shelter. But in such a hypothetical, society is much poorer, so people are forced to focus on bare subsistence. But I don't think anyone would say such a society had a lot of valuable things in it--indeed, it's precisely the fact that such a society doesn't have a lot of valuable things in it that makes it poor. A rich society has many more valuable things in it than just what is needed for bare subsistence; that's what makes it rich. And people generally prefer a rich society to a poor one. Art is one of those valuable things that people in rich societies like to have. Not everyone, but people's tastes differ, and one of the nice things about rich societies is that it's much easier for people to satisfy their particular tastes, even if they're not common.