There's a forced reframing going on of what it means to be an artist, and what it means to appreciate artistry. Over time we've developed the idea that art, onc

There's a forced reframing going on of what it means to be an artist, and what it means to appreciate artistry. Over time we've developed the idea that art, once created, is not free for the observing; the artist has a right to compensation. It's an understandable position for these reasons: - We like art and we ant to show our support and appreciation for art - The most straightforward way to show support and appreciation for art is to give the artist money - Much of the art we appreciate was only possible due to the promise of monetary gain on the part of the artist But there are some old, unavoidable questions: - At what point does the pursuit of monetary gain begin to diminish one's own artistic expression? - At what point does the pursuit of monetary gain begin to diminish other peoples' artistic expression? As you point out, there is no art without appropriation and re-creation. And now there are some new, unavoidable facts: - Appropriation is becoming easier - Attribution is therefore becoming more difficult - Compensation is therefore becoming more difficult - Rewinding the clock is impossible The only way out of this would be for humanity to collectively take a puritanical stance on art, where any form of appropriation is demonized. I think this would make art suck.