4 ms·

I think you're just interpreting the meaning of "made to be sold" very literally. Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so

I think you're just interpreting the meaning of "made to be sold" very literally. Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold; but that is not the main motivation behind making the art, where commercial "art" - advertising, mainstream cinema, pop music, most art galleries, anime, 80% of what you see in arts and crafts fairs, pieces in IKEA - is created with profit as the main motive. Going back to the origin of this, stating that Ghibli style videos generated with SORA (which the OP initially called "content") are equivalent to Studio Ghibli movies because they are both "art made to be sold" would be wild. A film like Spirited Away took over 1 million hours of work, if making money was the main goal it would have never happened.

estearum 1y ago
> Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold "they want their to be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold" is a clever trick but one is not related to the other. One could want their art to be appreciated and never sell it, but virtually no one would see this art for a variety of reasons including the fact that marketability increases visibility and that there is very, very little amateur art that is worth looking at, much less promoting to a larger audience. It seems you agree that in fact art (that anyone sees) is overwhelmingly made to be sold. I didn't say anything about their "main motivation" and neither you nor I (nor even the artist, frankly) could say much about what someone's main motivation is. What we can say is that nearly all of the art anyone sees was in fact made to be sold, which is the specific claim that I made.
- Terretta 1y ago
  > nearly all of the art anyone sees See comment above.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Yes you're just restating my thesis but with the air of disputing it.
    - WhyOhWhyQ 1y ago
      Buddy your thesis is that art does not exist because of capitalism. That is a ridiculous 'thesis'.
      - estearum 1y ago
        ... what? Not sure how you got that, but no, that's not what I believe. Here, I'll restate it: > Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold. > Art is overwhelmingly not a charity project from artists to the commons.
        ricardobeat 1y ago
        Which is why the original comment you replied to characterized it as content and not art. But this has gone pretty much full circle already.
        estearum 1y ago
        So apparently: The Sistine Chapel: Content, not art The Mona Lisa: Content, not art The Guggenheim: Content, not art David: Content, not art Geurnica: Content, not art Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Op. 67: Content, not art I understand why the original comment said it, and my response is a simple explanation as to why the original comment was very obviously incorrect.

estearum 1y ago

> Of course artists want to make a living and have their art be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold "they want their to be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold" is a clever trick but one is not related to the other. One could want their art to be appreciated and never sell it, but virtually no one would see this art for a variety of reasons including the fact that marketability increases visibility and that there is very, very little amateur art that is worth looking at, much less promoting to a larger audience. It seems you agree that in fact art (that anyone sees) is overwhelmingly made to be sold. I didn't say anything about their "main motivation" and neither you nor I (nor even the artist, frankly) could say much about what someone's main motivation is. What we can say is that nearly all of the art anyone sees was in fact made to be sold, which is the specific claim that I made.

Terretta 1y ago
> nearly all of the art anyone sees See comment above.
- estearum 1y ago
  Yes you're just restating my thesis but with the air of disputing it.
  - WhyOhWhyQ 1y ago
    Buddy your thesis is that art does not exist because of capitalism. That is a ridiculous 'thesis'.
    - estearum 1y ago
      ... what? Not sure how you got that, but no, that's not what I believe. Here, I'll restate it: > Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold. > Art is overwhelmingly not a charity project from artists to the commons.
      - ricardobeat 1y ago
        Which is why the original comment you replied to characterized it as content and not art. But this has gone pretty much full circle already.
        estearum 1y ago
        So apparently: The Sistine Chapel: Content, not art The Mona Lisa: Content, not art The Guggenheim: Content, not art David: Content, not art Geurnica: Content, not art Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Op. 67: Content, not art I understand why the original comment said it, and my response is a simple explanation as to why the original comment was very obviously incorrect.