cybercoma Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I don't think it makes much difference at all. ... people make art because of how their brain works.Interesting argument. Could you elaborate on this bit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I get it, Tim. You think the only thing that is art is entertainment. Everything else is "elistist" (sic). Your argument adds nothing to the conversation. As MH pointed out, you can define everything as everything, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) I get it, Tim. You think the only thing that is art is entertainment. Everything else is "elistist" (sic).No. What I am saying is people who claim that art is something other than entertainment are engaging self deception designed to stroke their egos and convince themselves they are are somehow "better" than the masses who don't share their entertainment preferences.You are the one who started the thread by suggesting there is some absolute standard of "art" and that the capitalist system is not good at funding it. My response is: can you provide any argument that what you call "art" is anything more than entertainment for the minority that actually like the "art" in question? Edited February 9, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Or, it could be a major strength. I'm not sure what is on your radio dial, but I can hear plenty of indie music. As it happens, it is available on a station largely paid for by subscribers. Nickleback is no less valid than an indie band, it is a conceit to think that either is more valid than the other. (and for the record, I'd sooner thrust hot pokers in my eyes than listen to Nickleback.) I can hear some indie music one one alt channel where I live, but not a lot. I don't have satellite radio in my car. Nickelback may be no less valid, but it sucks when they first got popular then all you heard on the radio for a couple years were Nickelback clones. The goal of profit and risk of supporting unknown artists means Nickelback clones got signed to big labels and played on the radio and music video channels because it was "safe", while quality indie bands got shoved to satellite & internet radio and took years more to get noticed if at all. What sells well in music isn't always what most people will like the most, but often what is pumped/supported and advertised by the music industry, especially in pop music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Interesting argument. Could you elaborate on this bit? I can try... Some people have an attribute that compells them to be creative. Its not money that does it... most artists die poor. The ancient people that painted scenes in the caves they lived in, didnt need money or intellectual property rights to want to paint. JS Bach was dirt poor his entire life and many of the greatest artists in history were poor or middle class at best. They produce art because thats what they are and who they are, and thats what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 dre, Given our capitalist economy, however, could one survive like they did in the past? People work jobs to survive now, while in the past you could survive off subsistence farming or other means of providing for yourself not particularly viable or necessarily legal today. MG, there's a guy by the name of Ritzer that has an argument about the McDonaldization of Society. Part of it posits that as we "progress" we begin to value quantity over quality, as well as predictability and reproducibility over randomness. You begin to not only see formulaic movies, but multiple sequels on the same story or spinoffs. Your example of Nickelback and all of its spinoff bands is the same idea. It's predictable and produced in quantity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) MG, there's a guy by the name of Ritzer that has an argument about the McDonaldization of Society. Part of it posits that as we "progress" we begin to value quantity over quality, as well as predictability and reproducibility over randomness. You begin to not only see formulaic movies, but multiple sequels on the same story or spinoffs. Your example of Nickelback and all of its spinoff bands is the same idea. It's predictable and produced in quantity. I'd theorize it's partly due to people not liking change, and we are creatures of habit/routine. What is known is safe, and requires less mental effort. In a business sense, things like movie sequels are safe bets. Studios know people like these films. As an investment it's better to take a 100 million dollar risk on a former success than a complete question mark. ie: Transformers 3 vs Green Lantern. Both mediocre films critically, but one did vastly better at box office. Edited February 9, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 dre, Given our capitalist economy, however, could one survive like they did in the past? Thats how MOST artists survive today. They are one person businesses that do most of their sales in person (market booths, home parties, limited consignment etc). There a mountain of really talented people that struggle to make 20 or 30 K per year. A huge number of them will never get any substantial income from their work at all... but hundreds of millions of people around the world in just about every culture still express themselves in this way. At some point we will probably understand the genetic and bio-chemical factors that pre-dispose us to this kind of activity, but its certainly not "money" that caused it. I had a buddy when I was kid... He would scavenge styrofoam wherever he could and cut it up into various shapes and blocks. He built a huge and ellaborate city on a pingpong table over the course of about 4 years. Really amazing, with incredible detail... Nobody paid him... He enjoyed getting lost in the project, and the reaction he got when he showed it to people. Theres actually a real conflict between art and capitalism. Artists are encouraged to productize their intellectual property, and mass produce similar products, or sell "prints" of origional works etc. My wife makes stirling silver jewlery, and what she really likes to do is create one-off works and create from scratch each time she sits down at her workbench. But what makes money is to make a large number of products based on an easily repeatable labor-efficent process. You could see that as a good thing or a bad thing. On one hand because shes has a financial interest in productizing her work she might never create the "mona lisa". But on the other hand a lot more people get to enjoy her work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Do capitalism stifle creativity, I suppose is the question that's coming up here. Habit/routine, predictability, etc., are good for some reasons and bad for others. When you walk into a McDonalds, regardless of where you are in the world, you want the food and service to be the same. A company couldn't survive if their products had wildly varying quality. However, that's for production. Does this system of quantity and replicability stifle creativity? Walter Benjamin argued that reproduction gives the original an aura that it wouldn't otherwise have. It's the original. If there were only one Mona Lisa and we didn't see replicas everywhere, would it have the original have the same cache? In all likelihood not. dre, while I think you might be right about some people being driven to creativity, I don't think it's only some people. Consider the requirement of capitalism for our workforce. You don't want unique and creative individuals in your workforce. You want hardworking people that are able to replicate tasks with little direction. You don't want someone on your assembly line making changes to your product. Our education system is organized around the idea of creating workers that are cogs in that machine. Even the school bell was modelled after the bells used in factories to indicate the start and end of shifts. We have built a society around stifling creativity on the one hand, yet demanding innovation to be successful on the other. However, it's only certain kinds of innovation that are valued. If someone is innovative and completely unique in the way they make a painting, write a book, or create music sometimes their work is considered too abstract. You need to be innovative, but not too innovative, especially with art. In production, you can be innovative, but lose money if it's not useful. A company over the holidays created a blender that has a heater in it, so you can cook soup in it--creative, but ultimately useless. Our system presents this paradox about creativity. As the cliche goes, "with great risk comes great rewards." Nobody ever mentions the other side of the coing, "with great risk comes great failures." Now this is business and production. What about ars gratia artis? It's not meant to be profitable and it's not meant to be replicable. Look at your wife's jewellery, for instance. Jewellery making is an art. It's much more satisfying for her to create a one-off. To express herself in some way through her art. As you say though, that's not what pays the bills. Our system is not designed to reward uniqueness and creativity in that way, but it demands it at the same time. It's an odd paradox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) However, it's only certain kinds of innovation that are valued. If someone is innovative and completely unique in the way they make a painting, write a book, or create music sometimes their work is considered too abstract.Innovation requires the creation of ideas that have value. If it has no value it is not innovative. Value can be measured in different ways. When it comes to art the ability to attract an audiance is the key measure. Art with no audiance is pointless. Edited February 9, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 dre, while I think you might be right about some people being driven to creativity, I don't think it's only some people. Consider the requirement of capitalism for our workforce. You don't want unique and creative individuals in your workforce. You want hardworking people that are able to replicate tasks with little direction. You don't want someone on your assembly line making changes to your product. Our education system is organized around the idea of creating workers that are cogs in that machine. Even the school bell was modelled after the bells used in factories to indicate the start and end of shifts. We have built a society around stifling creativity on the one hand, yet demanding innovation to be successful on the other. This is false. How many jobs are there left in the West which literally involve standing there and repetitively carrying out the exact same manual task on an assembly line? Almost every such job has either been automated with robotics or shipped to the developing world. The jobs that pay in advanced countries are those that involve substantial mental effort, and, yes, creativity. That is what gets rewarded in our society. Almost any kind of professional job, such as law, engineering, medicine, etc, requires constant thinking and responding to constantly varying situations in novel ways. The same is true of managers and executives, actors, architects, politicians, professors, researchers, etc. Almost every high paying job is like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 I can hear some indie music one one alt channel where I live, but not a lot. I don't have satellite radio in my car. Nickelback may be no less valid, but it sucks when they first got popular then all you heard on the radio for a couple years were Nickelback clones. The goal of profit and risk of supporting unknown artists means Nickelback clones got signed to big labels and played on the radio and music video channels because it was "safe", while quality indie bands got shoved to satellite & internet radio and took years more to get noticed if at all. What sells well in music isn't always what most people will like the most, but often what is pumped/supported and advertised by the music industry, especially in pop music. I was not talking about satellite radio, I was talking about a popular FM station that is mostly paid for by subscribers. It is a major factor in the arts scene here and much loved by musicians, because they know that can get their music on air. And what is the purpose of that, why should they care that others like their music? Because they can make money from it, the can express themselves, and most importantly they can quit the job at Candian Tire. Marketing is important to anybody who wants to make a living via art, not just big name artists. . The only substantive difference between Nickleback and an indie band is not the quality of music. It is the success of marketing, of reaching enough people that like what you do and to pay for it. And the viral marketing of indie music has made for a complete change in the music industry. The iNternet is perfect for indie bands, and severely damages the Nicklebacks. People today have far better access to much more music than ever before. The scenario you describe in yor last para is largely gone, gone , gone. If you don't like the success of Nickleack, then criticize the people who like it, not the musicians. The music that indies and Nickleback play may be different, but their reasons for doing it are the same. It is all so very subjective. Indie bands aren't neccesarily good or better because they are somehow more noble, many of them are untalented, suck hard and deserve to go nowhere.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 Innovation requires the creation of ideas that have value. If it has no value it is not innovative. Value can be measured in different ways. When it comes to art the ability to attract an audiance is the key measure. Art with no audiance is pointless. You're clearly not paying attention to the discussion. Since you're just repeating the problem over and over again. In order to make money in the current system, yes... art needs to attract an audience. Art that does not attract an audience is not pointless. I listed several extremely influential artists whose work is now worth millions, but they were nobodies to their contemporaries. I would hardly call Van Gogh pointless, but that's what your argument asserts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 In order to make money in the current system, yes... art needs to attract an audience. Right, because in the past, art didn't need to attract any kind of audience to make money. /facepalm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Reminds me of the Calgary clown ban ! I was under the impression that the ban has been in effect for some time, I even heard that one of them was living in Ottawa now in a place on Sussex Drive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Right, because in the past, art didn't need to attract any kind of audience to make money. /facepalm I know you have a really hard time understanding what you read, but I posted a list of artists whose work is monumentally valuable now, although ignored by their conteporaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I know you have a really hard time understanding what you read, but I posted a list of artists whose work is monumentally valuable now, although ignored by their conteporaries.So? All of these works were produced under some form of capitalist economy. All these artists had 'day jobs' that paid the bills while they created their works. In fact, some of these artists spent their lives trying to develop an audiance because they knew that ultimately art without an audiance is a waste of time. You, yourself acknowledge this when you measure their merit by the money their work fetches today. The fact that these individuals failed within their lifetime is not evidence that a different system is required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 This is an example why capitalism is the BEST economic system for art. http://www.kickstarter.com/ You put your creative project up on the web. People pledge money to get the project completed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 This is an example why capitalism is the BEST economic system for art. http://www.kickstarter.com/ You put your creative project up on the web. People pledge money to get the project completed. errr... see collaboration; see market socialism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 ultimately art without an audiance is a waste of time. The fact that these individuals failed within their lifetime good on ya - acknowledging your measure of success and failure is strictly, and absolutely, monetary. If a piece sells for $12K is it 3 times more "artful" than one that sells for $4K? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 good on ya - acknowledging your measure of success and failure is strictly, and absolutely, monetary. If a piece sells for $12K is it 3 times more "artful" than one that sells for $4K?The measure of success of art is audiance size. Money is a good proxy for audiance size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 The measure of success of art is audiance size. Money is a good proxy for audiance size. "The" measure? Wadda bout those private collections behind gated communities... pretty small private eye viewing audience there, hey? Oh wait, what's that? You've added a caveat to your measure of audience size... you now want to include a money proxy to gauge the "success" of the art? clearly, in your soulless monetary fixation, I'd expect you to have the most expensive Elvis velvet on your feature wall... yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Wadda bout those private collections behind gated communities... pretty small private eye viewing audience there, hey?Audiance is a measure of the people who are interested in it - not the number of people who are currently allowed to see/hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Audiance is a measure of the people who are interested in it - not the number of people who are currently allowed to see/hear it. whaaa! A TimG virtual audience size to align with your virtual art! Is your money proxy equally virtual? Is anything in your world of TimG capitalist art... real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 errr... see collaboration; see market socialism No. People are investing in creative pieces they want to support. They can completely ignore ones they don't like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.