2 ms·
Agree with a lot of this and also feel torn (though I've been settled on a side for a little while). I've been debating with my neighbor the last few years abo
by cm11 2y ago
Agree with a lot of this and also feel torn (though I've been settled on a side for a little while).
I've been debating with my neighbor the last few years about whether artists are still artists if they're charging for their "content". It's a bit of a facetious argument, but directionally if you have something you want people to hear, isn't the audience doing the favor by listening? Similar points have been made about Twitter (and social media generally) that folks have the right to say what they want, but not necessarily to be heard. A person can tweet, but not only can others block them (or just ignore and scroll by), the platforms/algorithms can not prioritize them in feeds. Folks aren't owed an audience. It's possible content is for the author. When it isn't, when authors wouldn't have put it up if it weren't for ad income, I feel less worried about what we're losing. That said, if I had to pay for everything, I would certainly read/watch less stuff I like too.
- fragmede 2y agoHow do you define art? Does it stop being art once it's in a museum? Does it stop being art if the museum is a gallery? How many layers of indirection have to happen between the artist and the gallery for it to be art?