4 ms·

If you're talking about the economic prognosis of art, I'd like to direct you to the world of high-end sports cars. There are many people who can afford to buy

by qzxt 14y ago

If you're talking about the economic prognosis of art, I'd like to direct you to the world of high-end sports cars. There are many people who can afford to buy and maintain them in this world. Not all of them do. Just like many people can afford to buy works of art, but not all of them do. Why? Because one doesn't really need a sports car, just like one doesn't really need an art piece. The author's essay isn't one of the lament of the hard times of an artist. It is a lament of the diminishing of creativity because his definition of creativity is rooted in a traditionalist idea of creativity as resting solely in the lap of artists. Before the PC revolution no one would want their kids to be programmers. "Programmers were smelly fat white kids". Now it's a hot commodity. Welcome to the markets. Mathematicians were "useless theorists" till a couple of decades ago (as a matter of fact many people still think this). Until industrialization, scientists were a bunch of "rich white guys, not in tune to the needs of the common man". And more importantly, up until recently, engineers were little math nerds, easy bait for the MBA alpha dudes. You're confusing economic safety with societal respect. If you're talking about the economic aspect, as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet. Poems wouldn't keep a roof over my head and hell, at the time, neither would code. Hasn't stopped me from writing poems in my spare time and engaging in my other pursuits. If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market. But economics isn't the author's thesis.

gnosis 14y ago
"as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet." You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid. "If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market." I'm not. Not until they can make a better living at it than most other professions. The sad fact is that not only is making art looked down on in this society (as "emo", or "gay", or as not serious or worthwhile), but most people are not interested in expressing themselves artistically (partially as a result of the education system, and partially because of social attitudes towards artists and art). Maybe as kids, a minority of Americans enjoyed an art class here and there, but they probably never dreamed of creating art for a living -- even if it somehow could earn them a decent wage (which it can't now.. not even remotely). So I don't think even economic parity with other respected professions would suddenly flood the market with artists. Not until societal attitudes and the education system changes pretty radically. Until then, people will still want to go in to a more respectable and "achievable" career path. Sure, if there's suddenly a swarm of artist billionaires like there has been of dotcom billionaires, then many money-hungry people will swarm in to the art field (as they have in to the startup industry). But I for one am not holding my breath.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- kenjackson 14y ago
  "as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet." You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid. I think now kids say, "I want to be a rapper". If you define art as "that thing that is emo" then you've created a tautology about art. But if you look at art as things like: rap, creating electronica music, writing screenplays, etc... I think you'll see that society as really embraced art. It's just not called art anymore. It's the same fate as AI.
- nonboy 14y ago
  Is designing a building art? What about a website? How about directing an advertisement or designing the title sequence for a television series? Is researching information for a historical documentary an artistic or scientific vocation? Is such a harsh delineation even suitable? Level design for a game? Texture design? Concept art? Designing the circuitry for a synthesizer? Many people are creating art for a living, though you may not see it as such. In fact, the authentic problem could be identified as society's very narrow definition of what "art" is. Artistic vocations are all over the place, and the prerequisites for entering such a career are just as, if not arguably more demanding than those for "technical" careers such as software engineering. There's also frequently overlap between technical and artistic vocations and they exist side-by-side for many businesses so I disagree with the notion that people can't make money selling art (including the one belonging to the parent poster).
rdouble 14y ago
If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art Now is that time. Poetry is another thing altogether, but more visual artists are making more money right now than they ever have at any other point in history.
- zanny 14y ago
  I think the time was probably in 1970. While you have a much larger audience today, and computers have kicked the artistic potential of individuals into overdrive, I think the main factor in a healthy arts economy is a wealthy society. The America of the 70s hit around its peak wealth per person - it has been going down ever since. I don't think the advances in artist productivity trump the fact people make significantly less money than before, and buying art of any form (including entertainment) is still a luxury. Hopefully the best is yet to come - if we can get a fabricated / automated food revolution, and automated housing, and automated raw materials mining / gathering in the next few decades, besides the fact most people won't have non STEM / artistic / law / business work to do, there would be more luxurious wealth to go around. I guess it could go either in the direction of everyone goes destitute as a concentrated few own the automated means of production, or government intervention means everyone has the lower tiers of the hierarchy needs covered without straining oneself, leaving everything else to creative pursuits.
  - rdouble 14y ago
    Although I didn't cite any stats (google "art market booming" if interested) it's not an opinion. There has been an art boom over the past decades, and there are more artists making a lot more money than ever before. Certainly more than in the 1970s.
    - justincormack 14y ago
      Thats probably because of the booming inequality that means some people have a lot of money. It is unclear that art is becoming more democratic or widespread other than this.
    - 14y ago
nickheer 14y ago
"Hasn't stopped me from writing poems in my spare time and engaging in my other pursuits." This is the epitome of the lack of concern for creative practices that gnosis is referring to. It's a "spare time" thing. Anyone can do it. It's not a real job. It doesn't deserve the effort or respect that STEM gets. (I'm not saying this is what you believe, but this is a trope I've noticed.) The idea that there is widespread respect for creative types of all breeds is hogwash. I work as both a front-end web developer and a web designer. I can provide the exact same quote for the exact same amount of work for those two fields, but I have to fight tooth and nail to get anywhere close to my estimate if it's a design project.

by qzxt 14y ago

gnosis 14y ago

"as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet." You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid. "If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market." I'm not. Not until they can make a better living at it than most other professions. The sad fact is that not only is making art looked down on in this society (as "emo", or "gay", or as not serious or worthwhile), but most people are not interested in expressing themselves artistically (partially as a result of the education system, and partially because of social attitudes towards artists and art). Maybe as kids, a minority of Americans enjoyed an art class here and there, but they probably never dreamed of creating art for a living -- even if it somehow could earn them a decent wage (which it can't now.. not even remotely). So I don't think even economic parity with other respected professions would suddenly flood the market with artists. Not until societal attitudes and the education system changes pretty radically. Until then, people will still want to go in to a more respectable and "achievable" career path. Sure, if there's suddenly a swarm of artist billionaires like there has been of dotcom billionaires, then many money-hungry people will swarm in to the art field (as they have in to the startup industry). But I for one am not holding my breath.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
kenjackson 14y ago
"as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet." You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid. I think now kids say, "I want to be a rapper". If you define art as "that thing that is emo" then you've created a tautology about art. But if you look at art as things like: rap, creating electronica music, writing screenplays, etc... I think you'll see that society as really embraced art. It's just not called art anymore. It's the same fate as AI.
nonboy 14y ago
Is designing a building art? What about a website? How about directing an advertisement or designing the title sequence for a television series? Is researching information for a historical documentary an artistic or scientific vocation? Is such a harsh delineation even suitable? Level design for a game? Texture design? Concept art? Designing the circuitry for a synthesizer? Many people are creating art for a living, though you may not see it as such. In fact, the authentic problem could be identified as society's very narrow definition of what "art" is. Artistic vocations are all over the place, and the prerequisites for entering such a career are just as, if not arguably more demanding than those for "technical" careers such as software engineering. There's also frequently overlap between technical and artistic vocations and they exist side-by-side for many businesses so I disagree with the notion that people can't make money selling art (including the one belonging to the parent poster).

rdouble 14y ago

If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art Now is that time. Poetry is another thing altogether, but more visual artists are making more money right now than they ever have at any other point in history.

zanny 14y ago
I think the time was probably in 1970. While you have a much larger audience today, and computers have kicked the artistic potential of individuals into overdrive, I think the main factor in a healthy arts economy is a wealthy society. The America of the 70s hit around its peak wealth per person - it has been going down ever since. I don't think the advances in artist productivity trump the fact people make significantly less money than before, and buying art of any form (including entertainment) is still a luxury. Hopefully the best is yet to come - if we can get a fabricated / automated food revolution, and automated housing, and automated raw materials mining / gathering in the next few decades, besides the fact most people won't have non STEM / artistic / law / business work to do, there would be more luxurious wealth to go around. I guess it could go either in the direction of everyone goes destitute as a concentrated few own the automated means of production, or government intervention means everyone has the lower tiers of the hierarchy needs covered without straining oneself, leaving everything else to creative pursuits.
- rdouble 14y ago
  Although I didn't cite any stats (google "art market booming" if interested) it's not an opinion. There has been an art boom over the past decades, and there are more artists making a lot more money than ever before. Certainly more than in the 1970s.
  - justincormack 14y ago
    Thats probably because of the booming inequality that means some people have a lot of money. It is unclear that art is becoming more democratic or widespread other than this.
  - 14y ago

nickheer 14y ago

"Hasn't stopped me from writing poems in my spare time and engaging in my other pursuits." This is the epitome of the lack of concern for creative practices that gnosis is referring to. It's a "spare time" thing. Anyone can do it. It's not a real job. It doesn't deserve the effort or respect that STEM gets. (I'm not saying this is what you believe, but this is a trope I've noticed.) The idea that there is widespread respect for creative types of all breeds is hogwash. I work as both a front-end web developer and a web designer. I can provide the exact same quote for the exact same amount of work for those two fields, but I have to fight tooth and nail to get anywhere close to my estimate if it's a design project.