4 ms·

You keep on insisting I said art has no value and implying people don't pay. Please show me when and where I said that. I said art has a low real value and that

You keep on insisting I said art has no value and implying people don't pay. Please show me when and where I said that. I said art has a low real value and that its perceived value has historically been vastly overblown. Yes, people pay money for art (including me), but the pricing has been steadily falling due to increasing supply (more artists) and efficiency (digital technologies). "AI" in particular is likely going to slash the perceived value lower than humanity has ever seen by making the creation of art dramatically more democratic, thereby reflecting the low real value better. I consume a lot of art just like most other people, and also realize that I probably pay far too much for it all too because art just doesn't serve any of life's needs other than perhaps killing boredom and flaunting social status.

pdonis 2y ago
> the pricing has been steadily falling due to increasing supply (more artists) The average price has because the increase in supply (which, as you say, is being dramatically facilitated by digital technologies and will be even more so by AI) drastically increases the variability in quality. I think your categorical statements don't take into account that large variability. > art just doesn't serve any of life's needs I have already explained why I disagree with this. I think your concept of what has value is too narrow. I don't disagree that there is much "art" produced that has little or no value--and I don't spend any money on it. But that doesn't mean I think all art has little or no value. Some works of art--the ones I've spent significant money on--have had a great deal of value for me, and for many other people.