3 ms·

Do you mean that art is as useless now as whips in the age of motor cars?

by griftah 17y ago

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
I don't think art or buggy whips are useless. But if my sole goal was to generate income, I'd not start my business plan with either. Luckily for everyone, most people's goals include factors other than profit. Hence symphony orchestras and philosophers exist despite lack of potential upside on their time investment.
jerf 17y ago
See, this is why you shouldn't use metaphors in arguments. Since there's always a point that doesn't apply, expect people to zoom in on that part. How about this: When you produce something without having negotiated a payment in advance, thus establishing its value to somebody, you have no right to complain when nobody finds enough value in the work to give you money. You are free to produce all the art, buggy whips, windows, or any other object you want, but you are not free to demand that people give you money afterward. You are free to try to convince them to do so (marketing), but insisting that people MUST appreciate your art with money is actually an infringement of other people's rights to have their own valuations of things, as you are imposing your valuations on them. (That's a critical point there, BTW; "right to have your own valuation" may not be a right frequently talked about but it's really quite fundamental to many of the other much flashier and popular rights.)
- tptacek 17y ago
  If I produce a buggy whip, put it on a store shelf, and demand $75,000 for it, you are entitled not to pay for it. You are not entitled to take it. If I produce a Feist album, put it on a store shelf, and demand $15 for it, you are entitled --- in fact, advised --- not to pay for it. But you are also not entitled to copy it. I do not understand what is so hard to understand about this situation. The music labels suck. A lot of artists suck. When something sucks, you don't do business with it. You get no other rights and privileges. They can charge $15 or $75,000. They can give you FLAC files or .EXEs that play music by hijacking the scheduler loop in your kernel. Your options: (1) agree to their terms, or (2) stay away from them.
  - jerf 17y ago
    I agree. What I posted was not about that, merely the idea that merely by being arty, we are required to support it. It's a popular idea, but I don't think it stands up to clear thinking. If you do produce a buggy whip and price it for $75,000, nobody is entitled to thereby take it, but, well, while you have every right to whine about how nobody values it, I have every right to call that a terrible argument.

Do you mean that art is as useless now as whips in the age of motor cars?

by griftah 17y ago

Do you mean that art is as useless now as whips in the age of motor cars?

I don't think art or buggy whips are useless. But if my sole goal was to generate income, I'd not start my business plan with either. Luckily for everyone, most people's goals include factors other than profit. Hence symphony orchestras and philosophers exist despite lack of potential upside on their time investment.

jerf 17y ago

See, this is why you shouldn't use metaphors in arguments. Since there's always a point that doesn't apply, expect people to zoom in on that part. How about this: When you produce something without having negotiated a payment in advance, thus establishing its value to somebody, you have no right to complain when nobody finds enough value in the work to give you money. You are free to produce all the art, buggy whips, windows, or any other object you want, but you are not free to demand that people give you money afterward. You are free to try to convince them to do so (marketing), but insisting that people MUST appreciate your art with money is actually an infringement of other people's rights to have their own valuations of things, as you are imposing your valuations on them. (That's a critical point there, BTW; "right to have your own valuation" may not be a right frequently talked about but it's really quite fundamental to many of the other much flashier and popular rights.)

tptacek 17y ago
If I produce a buggy whip, put it on a store shelf, and demand $75,000 for it, you are entitled not to pay for it. You are not entitled to take it. If I produce a Feist album, put it on a store shelf, and demand $15 for it, you are entitled --- in fact, advised --- not to pay for it. But you are also not entitled to copy it. I do not understand what is so hard to understand about this situation. The music labels suck. A lot of artists suck. When something sucks, you don't do business with it. You get no other rights and privileges. They can charge $15 or $75,000. They can give you FLAC files or .EXEs that play music by hijacking the scheduler loop in your kernel. Your options: (1) agree to their terms, or (2) stay away from them.
- jerf 17y ago
  I agree. What I posted was not about that, merely the idea that merely by being arty, we are required to support it. It's a popular idea, but I don't think it stands up to clear thinking. If you do produce a buggy whip and price it for $75,000, nobody is entitled to thereby take it, but, well, while you have every right to whine about how nobody values it, I have every right to call that a terrible argument.