10 ms·
I think you may be misinterpreting "the best ones are predominately the ones that already exist" a bit. Most cultural production in any medium is forgettable.
by autarch 12y ago
I think you may be misinterpreting "the best ones are predominately the ones that already exist" a bit.
Most cultural production in any medium is forgettable. How many composers do you think were alive at the same time as Beethoven? Hundreds? Thousands? How many of them do we still listen to today? Tens, maybe less.
Even more recently, let's take The Beatles and their contemporaries. Of course, The Beatles were not the only seminal artists of their time. They were active at the same time as David Bowie and The Rolling Stones. But again, how many of their contemporaries produced albums that are now forgotten by everyone who listened to them? How much of what's left even now will be gone in another 75 years, when basically everyone who was alive in the 60s is dead?
The only difference between the 60s (or early 1800s) and now is that we haven't yet forgotten all the crap that is being put out today. Will future historians of pop music assign more than a footnote to Katie Perry or Taylor Swift 50 years from now? Will they even get a footnote?
So the reason old art is the best art is simply that we've had time to weed out all the crap. The remaining art that we still remember is the best of what was released at the time. It's not the best because all old was better, it's the best because it's been better curated.
In fact, for all we know, the overall proportion of art that is good might be even better today, but that doesn't change his proposition that we don't really need new art in order to experience great art for the rest of our lives.
- mikeash 12y agoI'm familiar with that argument. But you seem to be completely ignoring my point about the value of a contemporary context. If context counts for a lot then it doesn't matter how good the best of the old stuff was when it was created or how easy it is to figure out which bits are the best today. Newer stuff will still be better now because it's more relevant. Much of it won't be better to people in the future, but that doesn't matter to people now.
- eli_gottlieb 12y agoWhile I'm not entirely sure who they are or what they sing, I'm pretty sure at least some people actually like Katie Perry and Taylor Swift, and it would be a disfavor to those fans to deprive them of the artists they like.
- MichaelGG 12y agoWould those same people suffer an absolute difference in musical enjoyment if those two artists did not exist? Is there a reason to believe that another set of artists wouldn't have filled that gap and users would be just as happy? That is, if there was no copyright and instead we were listening to stuff artists made just because they're artists, and they find a way to create, is the public at net loss? In photography, amateurs are all over, with top equipment (it's an old joke that non-pros have the better equipment as they can better afford it). If I go to look at pictures of some place, it may very well be that professional photographers are providing zero additional value to my viewing enjoyment. Why should this be different than any other area?
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago>Would those same people suffer an absolute difference in musical enjoyment if those two artists did not exist? Statistically speaking, yes, some of them would.
- autarch 12y agoI wasn't arguing that new art shouldn't exist, simply explaining why I think the linked article suggests that people would be perfectly happy if no new art were made.