3 ms·

For centuries art mainly survived on the patron model (people would pay artists before the work was created, not afterward). I'm not sure why you're argument th

by bo1024 13y ago

For centuries art mainly survived on the patron model (people would pay artists before the work was created, not afterward). I'm not sure why you're argument that artists need money has anything inherently to do with copyright.

anigbrowl 13y ago
Yes, and art was also the preserve of a tiny elite. The patron model is not that great, I'm not sure why there's this meme that developers or other innovators should be able to make fat money but artists should shut up and be happy someone underwrites them, as opposed to trying to make money from selling their work to the public.
alexqgb 13y ago
The fact that you don't see the connection does not mean that the connection doesn't exist. It just means you have no idea how the business of art actually works. Indeed, it seems like you don't know much about art itself. When you note that artists used to rely on patrons for money (for materials and living) you forget that patrons also told the artists what to create. This meant lots of Biblical scenes for the Church, plenty of portraits, sculpture, and landscape paintings for the Aristocracy, and not much else. One of the most important cultural developments in the history of cultural developments has been the emergence of artists a autonomous creators. This is what elevated their roles from those of highly skilled craftsmen to leading intellectuals, pushing the boundaries of human perception. Culturally and creatively, we started to live in a totally different universe once the artistic class freed itself from the very narrow, conservative, and self-glorifying interests of the patron class. I'm sorry, but the idea of "going back" seems like going back to government by heridetaty monarchy, alchemy, candle-lit everything, and anastesia-free dentistry. It's not what most people want. Copyright leaves a lot to be desired, and it has plenty of room for improvement. Even so, it is vastly preferable to the alternative.
- bo1024 13y ago
  I never mentioned "going back" and you still haven't shown any connection. I'm just pointing out that the fact that artists need money to survive doesn't mean that we need super stringent copyright terms. The 16th century patron model is certainly not "the [only] alternative" to our current model of copyright.

by bo1024 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago

Yes, and art was also the preserve of a tiny elite. The patron model is not that great, I'm not sure why there's this meme that developers or other innovators should be able to make fat money but artists should shut up and be happy someone underwrites them, as opposed to trying to make money from selling their work to the public.

alexqgb 13y ago

The fact that you don't see the connection does not mean that the connection doesn't exist. It just means you have no idea how the business of art actually works. Indeed, it seems like you don't know much about art itself. When you note that artists used to rely on patrons for money (for materials and living) you forget that patrons also told the artists what to create. This meant lots of Biblical scenes for the Church, plenty of portraits, sculpture, and landscape paintings for the Aristocracy, and not much else. One of the most important cultural developments in the history of cultural developments has been the emergence of artists a autonomous creators. This is what elevated their roles from those of highly skilled craftsmen to leading intellectuals, pushing the boundaries of human perception. Culturally and creatively, we started to live in a totally different universe once the artistic class freed itself from the very narrow, conservative, and self-glorifying interests of the patron class. I'm sorry, but the idea of "going back" seems like going back to government by heridetaty monarchy, alchemy, candle-lit everything, and anastesia-free dentistry. It's not what most people want. Copyright leaves a lot to be desired, and it has plenty of room for improvement. Even so, it is vastly preferable to the alternative.

bo1024 13y ago
I never mentioned "going back" and you still haven't shown any connection. I'm just pointing out that the fact that artists need money to survive doesn't mean that we need super stringent copyright terms. The 16th century patron model is certainly not "the [only] alternative" to our current model of copyright.