3 ms·
> If something is made only for money, it is not art, and indeed I can understand why those making it advocate so strongly for copyright restrictions, money bei
by IAmBroom 1y ago
> If something is made only for money, it is not art, and indeed I can understand why those making it advocate so strongly for copyright restrictions, money being the only thing attached to their art.
I struggle to think of a time when it was not so.
Da Vinci apprenticed as a painter; that is, he intended to make his living by selling his art for the dreaded "money". Other capitalist fraudsters posing as "artists" included Michaelangelo (who accepted the despised "money" for painting the Sistine Chapel!!!), Rembrandt, Degas, Picasso, and Pollack.
Then there are those charlatans of the art world whose names are forgotten to history, but they certainly accepted money for illustrating the walls of the pyramid passageways, the pages of bibles, and countless portraits of kings and courtesans.
- mytailorisrich 1y agoWhen you visit Italy all those masterpieces from the Renaissance are commissions made for money.
- fedeb95 1y agothat they worked for money doesn't mean money was the only thing attached to their art. You quoted a period very different from now, where there wasn't any stupid royalty or copyright: you had to work in order to earn money, if you were a painter, that meant making new paintings. I'm not stating that today technologies don't bring up new questions. But making silly laws that go against the nature of such technologies won't solve them.