Sometimes I think about how much art was never created because of capitalism. It either never got funded, or a potential artist never got the chance to make it, because just to scrape by, they had to spend too much time toiling to make some business owners money. It’s depressing.
And, just to cut off one potential counterargument: I don’t give half of a shit how “good” that art would be. I’m confident there are spectacular works of art that never came to be, but even putting it aside, it’s all subjective. Some folks would have loved it, and the artists would have found value in making it. That’s more than enough, and a hell of a lot more meaningful than breaking your back working for a living so that other people can own stuff for a living.
And how much crappy art was pushed to popularity just because it was more easily marketable. To be popular you have to somewhat sell out and there are probably thousands of marginalized artists no one ever discovered because of that :/
40 hour workweek is excessive. This is based around units containing at least two adults, maybe multigenerational homes with grandparents doing childcare. Now that we expect dual incomes the workweek should be 20 hours at most before overtime kicks in.
What I am getting at is that just giving people time back to exist could happen with changes to the current system. Unfortunately that means smaller yachts for the people on top, so we cannot have it.
As a perpetually single guy I’m actually behind this. Most of the time I’m completely forgotten about and the conversation goes as if being married is the default position for everyone.
I was just talking about this yesterday with a friend. They’re a writer with a few small published things, but they can’t do it full time because they’re barely scraping by with work.
Andrei Tarkovsky is one of cinema’s greatest contributors, and published his works purely during the mid-late Soviet Era. George Lucas once expressed that he felt less free in Capitalist America to make art that he wanted to than Soviet filmmakers, even with government censorship.
While I am not a fan of capitalism, there is something to say about everyone does what they do best. I am not an artist, but there is a lot of artists for me to enjoy and support on the internet, and for them it’s easier than ever to live the life off an artist.
Idk about other places, bit in Norway there’s a requirement for a % of the budget that has to be used for art on the outside areas and lobby area on public buildings.
Almost all of it is crap. So giving away money to anyone calling themselves an artist doesn’t work.
For some reason people in art believe they don’t have to compete like every other individual creating a business. I’ve bought art and have some on my walls at home. But it’s an ocean of bad or uncreative works to skim through if you want to find something you like.
Hey, that’s like every other work, and people still get paid for their shit output in other fields.
There’s no reason for any of us to compete to survive. Especially when the metric that determines whether one succeeds in competing is just how much money some rich fuck makes off of your efforts.
Creating art is a product which requires demand. Say you work as a graphic designer for a magazine or TV station. Then you make your money doing art just as a receptionist make money sitting behind the desk.
Being a receptionist as a freelance is a pretty shitty gig I believe. Working with art as a freelancer is actually possible. But it require a lot of networking and actual talent.
The demand for mediocre art is low. The demand for good art is high. Prices on popular works increase fast.
Wait. Define good and mediocre, first. Then, please, adress the most important point: why should we have to compete to just survive?
Also, that kind of competition, and the inequalities that it gives birth to, benefit mostly the system and the very very very few people that are behind it, not the majority of the people.
Sometimes I think about how much art was never created because of capitalism. It either never got funded, or a potential artist never got the chance to make it, because just to scrape by, they had to spend too much time toiling to make some business owners money. It’s depressing.
And, just to cut off one potential counterargument: I don’t give half of a shit how “good” that art would be. I’m confident there are spectacular works of art that never came to be, but even putting it aside, it’s all subjective. Some folks would have loved it, and the artists would have found value in making it. That’s more than enough, and a hell of a lot more meaningful than breaking your back working for a living so that other people can own stuff for a living.
And how much crappy art was pushed to popularity just because it was more easily marketable. To be popular you have to somewhat sell out and there are probably thousands of marginalized artists no one ever discovered because of that :/
Thomas Kinkade, vomiter of light
40 hour workweek is excessive. This is based around units containing at least two adults, maybe multigenerational homes with grandparents doing childcare. Now that we expect dual incomes the workweek should be 20 hours at most before overtime kicks in.
What I am getting at is that just giving people time back to exist could happen with changes to the current system. Unfortunately that means smaller yachts for the people on top, so we cannot have it.
As a perpetually single guy I’m actually behind this. Most of the time I’m completely forgotten about and the conversation goes as if being married is the default position for everyone.
I was just talking about this yesterday with a friend. They’re a writer with a few small published things, but they can’t do it full time because they’re barely scraping by with work.
Andrei Tarkovsky is one of cinema’s greatest contributors, and published his works purely during the mid-late Soviet Era. George Lucas once expressed that he felt less free in Capitalist America to make art that he wanted to than Soviet filmmakers, even with government censorship.
While I am not a fan of capitalism, there is something to say about everyone does what they do best. I am not an artist, but there is a lot of artists for me to enjoy and support on the internet, and for them it’s easier than ever to live the life off an artist.
Very obviously
Is that a problem?
And you think capitalism uniquely allows people to “do what they do best”?
I’ll make sure my virtuousic drummer friend who was forced to become an electrician’s apprentice in order to survive knows about this.
Idk about other places, bit in Norway there’s a requirement for a % of the budget that has to be used for art on the outside areas and lobby area on public buildings.
Almost all of it is crap. So giving away money to anyone calling themselves an artist doesn’t work.
For some reason people in art believe they don’t have to compete like every other individual creating a business. I’ve bought art and have some on my walls at home. But it’s an ocean of bad or uncreative works to skim through if you want to find something you like.
Hey, that’s like every other work, and people still get paid for their shit output in other fields.
There’s no reason for any of us to compete to survive. Especially when the metric that determines whether one succeeds in competing is just how much money some rich fuck makes off of your efforts.
Creating art is a product which requires demand. Say you work as a graphic designer for a magazine or TV station. Then you make your money doing art just as a receptionist make money sitting behind the desk.
Being a receptionist as a freelance is a pretty shitty gig I believe. Working with art as a freelancer is actually possible. But it require a lot of networking and actual talent.
The demand for mediocre art is low. The demand for good art is high. Prices on popular works increase fast.
Wait. Define good and mediocre, first. Then, please, adress the most important point: why should we have to compete to just survive? Also, that kind of competition, and the inequalities that it gives birth to, benefit mostly the system and the very very very few people that are behind it, not the majority of the people.
I mean, for all you know that could be because they’re not giving enough money away to anyone calling themselves an artist.
*So, giving that exact amount of money away to anyone calling themselves an artist doesn’t work, for you personally.
If you think art is about selling a product, what’s the point of being alive?
Why should art then be considered a profession? It could be for the talented ones. For everyone else its a hobby.
Just like so many people doing basic woodworking at home. Its a hobby and not a profession. Even though the most skilled ones has it as one.
Seeing a guy getting government founding totaling 3 million USD for shooting paint out his ass makes me clench around my tax money.