13 ms·

>Here's a better idea: look at the actual work produced under this model. With a few notable exceptions, it's an endless parade of flattering portraits of rich

• alexqgb 11y ago
  "I'd wager that the vast majority of music, art, and technological process and creation for our species has not been for pay in service of the groups you described." You'd win, but not for the reasons you imagine. You'd win because the vast majority of everything created by humans has been produced in the last century - and most of that has happened in countries with relatively strong democratic governance. "To think that art has historically been created solely for the rich is rather absurd. It simply isn't true." You're asserting this without any evidence, and doing do in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. "From the first known cave paintings, to the blues, to free software..." Whoa, hold up, there's a HUGE gap between your first and second examples, and specifically, a gap where the evidence you're unable to cite should be. Given the millennia-spanning history of civilization, expression that is legally protected from government interference is a very recent development, and even now, it's not one that's enjoyed worldwide. From ancient Sumer forward, you'll find that pretty much everything of note was created and controlled by the elite. And if not directly controlled, then certainly permitted only with their approval. Between the guilds that dominated production and the religious authorities who sanctioned their output, the power of art has - until very recently - been kept on a very short leash. To a degree, I see how this validates your point in that it speaks to a large (and largely suppressed) desire to produce work that goes beyond the range of official sanction. And that's true of both work that gets supported in return for toeing a party line, and of work that gets banned for crossing it. But the desire to produce work is not the same as producing actual work. More powerful forms of creativity that went beyond folk art (largely restricted to song and dance) require advanced study and formal training, which absolutely and invariably took place under the watchful eye of the ruling class. Near-exclusive reliance on patronage not only provided a means for rewarding the useful and the loyal, it also provided a reliable means for starving the disloyal and disruptive. And I wasn't being flip by associating patronage with systems like the index of banned books and the divine right of kings. You can dismiss the broader context in which patronage thrived if you like, but that's no way to gain a comprehensive and accurate view of the subject. Again, IP laws have never been perfect. But to the extent that they encapsulate the promise and power of democracy, they are tremendously instrumental in the explosion of human creativity that democratically ruled societies have been responsible for. Sure, there's always been some level of creativity present in human societies. But not until creative expression gained a measure of legal and economic independence, and people gained a strong measure of control over their governments, did the creative potential of humanity really lift off. While IP laws are far from the only factor in this explosion, they're within the set of indispensable conditions that made the explosion possible in the first place. In the absence of a social contract that guarantees the physical well-being of every individual, regardless of the work they do (or don't) perform, IP laws provide an essential protection for the vast stores of materials and labor that go into the production of the most compelling works of art. Absent this protection (and general social support) the ability to control and advance the arts returns to the elite and their dependents. Invariably, this concentration of cultural power gets used to undermine the democratic institutions that exist to limit the concentration of political power in the hands of an otherwise unaccountable elite.
  • c22 11y ago
    I think you may be conflating creation with publishing/marketing. It's possible that many things have been created that do not appear in history books because they were not preserved or advertised by wealth. We live in a world now where self publishing/endorsement is extremely accessible so it's possible that many modern day creations might make their way to the future without explicit dependence on wealth. One thing is certain, our current state of affairs is radically unlike that of both the 16th and the 20th centuries. Solutions to these problems will likely be novel.
    • alexqgb 11y ago
      No, I am not "conflating creation with publishing/marketing." I am making the point that creating work of any consequence is a time and cash intensive prospect, and that absent the IP protections that gave artists access to financial support outside the patronage system, the elites of pretty much every civilization since ancient Sumer have used their economic power to sharply control who does and doesn't work, and what does and doesn't get produced. The absence of work from the historical record cannot be explained solely by the dearth of preservation or advertisement on the part of elites. It's also a product of active suppression by the elites of anything that may challenge - or even lead to a challenge - of their power and authority. The best way to ensure that stuff like this never saw the light of day was to take full control of the means of production. This meant limiting access to both the tools of production and the training needed to use them well. As far as our recent liberation goes, IP laws that allow creatives to finance their own production are only part of the picture. Other important innovations include the concept of human rights, the idea that freedom of expression is one of them, and legal systems that respect and protect those who engage in free expression. None of this suggests that the desire to create freely and independently isn't a deeply felt part of the human condition. The point I'm making is that, until very recently, most people suffered under overbearing systems of governance that went out of their way to ensure that this creative desire was carefully controlled in the few cases where it wasn't brutally suppressed. Saying the patronage system "worked" is a bit like justifying slavery on the grounds that mansions in the Antebellum South were remarkably beautiful, or that imposing the miserable conditions endured by peasants in pre-Revolution France was "redeemed" by the glories of Versailles. It's possible to appreciate the artistic genius in work commissioned by monsters. But it's foolish to think that the mere existence of these transcendent efforts means we needn't worry about the conditions that produced them, or those who would allow these conditions to return.