Is capitalism the best economic system for art?

[cybercoma]

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?

Audience doesn't mean what you think it means. It's actually this other really different definition that suits my purposes, you see.

[August1991]

When Esi Edugyan won the Scotiabank Giller Prize this year, she made a comment about living in poverty working as an author.

Gimme a break.

No one intelligent lives today in poverty. Capitalism has made it possible for millions of people to think and invent.

Artists in the 15th century struggled, artists 30,000 years ago died. Nowadays, artists can receive state welfare and are free to create. Free markets and capitalism made this change possible

Capitalism is horrible for art. I think it's a major weakness of capitalism actually. Profits mean companies will usually only fund what they think will be most profitable and popular. This means crap like Nickelback on the radio instead of a lot of amazing Indie bands that just aren't as marketable for record companies and radio stations.

Somebody has to pay for an artist to live. What is better? An elitist monarch who chooses Mozart or ordinary people who choose Nickleback?

-----

When it comes to "art", I have different criteria. Here are my three critical questions:

Will people 500 years in the future look/listen to it? (My subjective opinion of what my great-great-great children will think.)

Do people today of a different culture/language pay attention? True art travels across cultures/languages.

Could I do this? I know true art when I see it - because I can't do it.

Edited February 11, 2012 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Gimme a break.

No one intelligent lives today in poverty.

There are plenty of intelligent people today living in poverty for one reason or another. Most notably our economy is cyclical and cannot operate without state intervention in the form of welfare or social assistance.

Capitalism has made it possible for millions of people to think and invent.

Yes it has and I acknowledge that benefit in the OP.

Artists in the 15th century struggled,

Artists today struggle. It's all relative. Unless you're suggesting that poverty and struggle today is not really struggling unless its akin to the struggles of the Middle Ages and Renaissance era.

artists 30,000 years ago died.

Everyone dies.

Nowadays, artists can receive state welfare and are free to create. Free markets and capitalism made this change possible

I agree; free markets and capitalism are the reason state welfare exist. Social assistance is there because capitalism cannot operate own without a safety net. Otherwise, people revolt violently when they have no jobs and no opportunities and they perceive it as being the employers' fault. Today the government takes responsibility for mitigating these cyclical crises, so we blame them instead. Edited February 11, 2012 by cybercoma

[August1991]

Social assistance is there because capitalism cannot operate own without a safety net. Otherwise, people revolt violently when they have no jobs and no opportunities and they perceive it as being the employers' fault.

That's nonsensical.

If I understand your argument cybercoma, capitalism creates wealth and to protect this wealth, it pays poor people so that they don't object to the wealth created. IOW, capitalism creates and shares wealth.

Cybercoma, would you prefer a system where there was no wealth created - and we are all equal?

Artists today struggle. It's all relative. Unless you're suggesting that poverty and struggle today is not really struggling unless its akin to the struggles of the Middle Ages and Renaissance era.

Well, the struggle of a Canadian artist in 2012 is somehow different from the struggle of an artist in Italy in 1512.

With that said, I can only hope that the struggle of an artist in 2512 is even more different again. I fear however that artists in 2512 will struggle as those in 1112 did.

I fear that cybercoma, you "progressives" are leading us on a "regressive" path.

Edited February 12, 2012 by August1991

[cybercoma]

That's nonsensical.

If I understand your argument cybercoma, capitalism creates wealth and to protect this wealth, it pays poor people so that they don't object to the wealth created. IOW, capitalism creates and shares wealth.

If you think that's nonsensical than you don't understand anything about capitalism. The scenario I paint was a reality prior to policies of state intervention, exemplified by the New Deal. That was the turning point in the West where it was recognized that laissez-faire economics could not continue. There were many strikes that ended violently at that time. People were sabotaging machinery that was outmoding their jobs. The Depression showed that the system would not work itself out of the slump it was in. Capitalism cannot be left on its own. The New Deal was recognition of this fact and turned the focus away from companies and the economic system and placed it directly on the government to mitigate the system's ill-effects.

Cybercoma, would you prefer a system where there was no wealth created - and we are all equal?

What does this have to do with anything? Nobody once in this thread has argued that everyone should be equal. I've never argued that everyone should be equal and when staunch capitalists like you tackle that strawman time and again, it begins to look silly. Absolute equally is not the goal nor would it even be preferable to what we have today. You need to realize that this question makes as much sense as me asking you if you want every last government program and regulation (health, environment, employment standards, etc.) eliminated.

Well, the struggle of a Canadian artist in 2012 is somehow different from the struggle of an artist in Italy in 1512.

Of course it is. It would be absurd to suggest otherwise.

I fear that cybercoma, you "progressives" are leading us on a "regressive" path.

Yet another non sequitor.

August, you illustrate perfectly my point. We cannot even have a critical discussion about capitalism without a number of people getting bent out of shape defending it as you have. There are benefits and limitations to the economic system. I was hoping we could flesh out both through discussion. As I suspected, though, it's so taboo to examine capitalism with any sort of analytical criticism that people simply cannot do it. You want to sit here and say it's all benefits with no downside, but that is intellectually dishonest. At least in my opening post, and here, I've argued that there are pros and cons to the system. Pure capitalism does not work, which is why we live in a mixed-economy. This much is obvious. Pure socialism or communism too does not work (although classes were never truly eliminated).

Thank you for offering support to the capitalist system by recognizing its ability to produce massive amounts of wealth, which has improved the quality of life for many people and fostered technological advancements from materials to communications used for art. I noted that much in the OP, but for some odd reason your replies seem to suggest condescendingly that I don't recognize that.

Edited February 12, 2012 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

....That was the turning point in the West where it was recognized that laissez-faire economics could not continue....

No, this is a very simplistic view of not only the term, but previous government interventions many decades before the Great Depression. If one wishes to specifically focus on the American experience (why?), the New Deal was only one of many policies along a protracted continuum. The United States became more of a mixed economy because of the Civil War compared to the circumstances of the Great Depression.

[cybercoma]

Yet, it wasn't until the New Deal that the responsibility for the economic cycle shifted from companies to the government and that's ultimately my point.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yet, it wasn't until the New Deal that the responsibility for the economic cycle shifted from companies to the government and that's ultimately my point.

Okay, but it is still not true. Government intervention and "responsibility" for the economy pre-dates the American's New Deal experience by many years, and in many other nations. The very framework for a national economy included governance and the attributes of commerce. Europe and Asia also had experience in such things far earlier than the 1930's.

[cybercoma]

Obviously there isn't a sharp distinction. The purpose of indentifying a turning-point is to better understand changes over time. It is generally recognized that following the New Deal capitalism shifted into "advanced capitalism" which is defined by the blurring of government and economy. While the economic cycle is the result of corporate activities, prior to the New Deal it was much more likely that people would blame companies and hold them accountable. There were violent strikes and clashes with companies. Many of them had their own private police forces even. Following the New Deal we shifted into an era where the government took on the responsibility of the economic cycle by offering programs to mitigate its deleterious effects. Of course there are exceptions, but the purpose of this description is to underline the change that has occurred over time and identify the turning point. Certainly, the Depression was the turning point where Keynesian economics blurred the border between economy and government. Prior to that there was a general belief that the economy will "work itself out".

[bush_cheney2004]

... Certainly, the Depression was the turning point where Keynesian economics blurred the border between economy and government. Prior to that there was a general belief that the economy will "work itself out".

No, that only continues a simplistic and narrow view for the sake of convenience. Political and economic movements were intertwined long before that around the world, and governments responded in kind or were turfed in violent revolt. Labor riots continue to this day. The American New Deal was a very specific and flawed approach at the time, experimenting with Keynesian ideas that would only be truly successful with military spending for WW2.

[Bob]

Free markets are the best system for all aspects of art: quality of art, access/affordability to art, and volume and diversity of art. Moreover, access from artists to the means to create and develop art is greater than it's ever been. Art is no longer relegated to the elites, all thanks to free markets.

The only thing that free markets cannot compete with is the extravagant art that can seemingly only be commissioned by tyrannies, such as the Hermitage in St. Petersburg built for the Russian aristocracy (beautiful, but possible only through extreme repression). Free markets do not permit such an absurd concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite while simultaneously permitting exploitation of workers to construct such ostentatious (although beautiful) works of art.

Those pathetic artists that complain that the free market doesn't earn them enough money simply don't have the talent or commitment to quality required to get a sufficient client-base. That's not our fault, that's their fault. Although of course many pathetic artists think their pathetic art is fabulous, and is unfairly unappreciated. Such is the self-delusion of many pathetic artists. If only they could force the stupid masses to support their artistic pursuits! That'd show 'em!

Free markets are absolutely the best system for art and for artists and for consumers of art.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Bob

[Bob]

Yeah, the art usually has to have a broad enough appeal to recoup the costs of producing it in a capitalist system, although occasionally people do willingly take a loss making art too.

This is somewhat misleading. Just as with many other niche products, all you need is a sufficient customer base, it doesn't need to be broad. Consider a painter - all he or she really needs is one buyer for each painting. This isn't a profession which requires a broad appeal, like some TV shows and movies. We've got more artists making more money and more art consumers being satisfied with a greater volume and diversity of art than ever before. All thanks to free markets.

This thread is just showcasing the typical vile attitude of the leftists who think they should be appointed as the stewards of our societies, since the free masses aren't smart enough to know what constitutes "good" art. Basically, we need them to enlighten us and spend our tax dollars on the kinda art that isn't sufficiently appreciated by the ignorant masses without the heavy hand of government. Without the government, all we'd have is Trailer Park Boys, and not "higher" art like This Hour Has 22 Minutes. It's absolutely ridiculous, and it shows the follower-mentality of the leftists who want to be lead by self-styled philosopher kings who will dictate to them what constitutes "good" art. Repulsive, really.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Bob

[cybercoma]

All of that presumes that the "best" art has the broadest audience. That's not necessarily true either.

[Bob]

All of that presumes that the "best" art has the broadest audience. That's not necessarily true either.

Wrong. I addressed this misnomer, already.

[Bob]

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.

This is the leftist romanticization of the tortured and unappreciated artist. Is Steve Carrel an artist? Is Martin Scorsese an artist? What about John Grisham? What about Chris Cornell? What about animators who work for Disney productions? Architects? Costume designers? Graphic designers? Ballet performers? The list of lucrative professions that are highly artistic is endless. This characterization of downtrodden one-person "art operations" with the struggling long-haired twenty-something loser living off of TV dinners is absolutely untrue. If you're genuinely talented and skilled in something meaningful, you'll be making a lot more than twenty or thirty thousand dollars a year.

Free markets are, without question, THE best systems for producing the highest quality of art, accessibility to art for more people, diversity of art, and accessibility to the means to produce art. All this leftist nonsense whining about the need for government to navigate society's art direction through spending taxpayer dollars is just predictable follower-rhetoric. You leftist followers need to be led by anointed superiors who will decide for you what art your money should be spent on, since the collective wisdom of freely associating people in our society can't compete with the infinite knowledge and sound judgment of an art minister.

[dre]

This is the leftist romanticization of the tortured and unappreciated artist. Is Steve Carrel an artist? Is Martin Scorsese an artist? What about John Grisham? What about Chris Cornell? What about animators who work for Disney productions? Architects? Costume designers? Graphic designers? Ballet performers? The list of lucrative professions that are highly artistic is endless. This characterization of downtrodden one-person "art operations" with the struggling long-haired twenty-something loser living off of TV dinners is absolutely untrue. If you're genuinely talented and skilled in something meaningful, you'll be making a lot more than twenty or thirty thousand dollars a year.

Free markets are, without question, THE best systems for producing the highest quality of art, accessibility to art for more people, diversity of art, and accessibility to the means to produce art. All this leftist nonsense whining about the need for government to navigate society's art direction through spending taxpayer dollars is just predictable follower-rhetoric. You leftist followers need to be led by anointed superiors who will decide for you what art your money should be spent on, since the collective wisdom of freely associating people in our society can't compete with the infinite knowledge and sound judgment of an art minister.

This characterization of downtrodden one-person "art operations" with the struggling long-haired twenty-something loser living off of TV dinners is absolutely untrue.

Like I said those people account for the vast majority of artists.

You leftist followers need to be led by anointed superiors who will decide for you what art your money should be spent on

Blah blah blah? Blah.

[Bonam]

Like I said those people account for the vast majority of artists.

Source? I find this statement incredibly doubtful.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Bonam

[dre]

Source? I find this statement incredibly doubtful.

Why? Try visiting you local market...

Theres a bit of data here on jewelers... and links to some other stuff. I couldnt find much really.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos222.htm

55% are self employed unsalaried workers (the people Bobo says dont exist). Across all the arts 60% are self employed.

The middle 50 percent earned between $24,370 and $43,440. Only 10% earned more than 55.

[Bob]

Source? I find this statement incredibly doubtful.

Well, Bonam.... any loser can just claim "artist" status. That's the point. The kid working at Loblaws who plays guitar for a few hours a week is the underappreciated "artist" who needs a taxpayer handout.

[Bob]

Nobody ever said self-employed artists didn't exist. What was challenged was your leftist narrative of the downtrodden artist who will never be appreciated in a free market system by the ignorant masses who aren't wise enough to see real talent.

[dre]

Nobody ever said self-employed artists didn't exist. What was challenged was your leftist narrative of the downtrodden artist who will never be appreciated in a free market system by the ignorant masses who aren't wise enough to see real talent.

That wasnt my narrative. Youre hearing little voices in your head again.

[Bob]

That wasnt my narrative. Youre hearing little voices in your head again.

Your definition of "artist" is so broad that an infant throwing her spaghetti bowl into the air can qualify for membership by claiming the kitchen floor served as her canvas.

[Bonam]

Why? Try visiting you local market...

Why? Because a vast part of our industry is art, and it employs millions of people. Whether it's 3d graphics for computer and video games, the movie industry, graphic design of commercial products, etc, all of that is art. Self-employment also doesn't mean someone who is just scraping by. Contractors are self-employed.

[Bob]

Why? Because a vast part of our industry is art, and it employs millions of people. Whether it's 3d graphics for computer and video games, the movie industry, graphic design of commercial products, etc, all of that is art. Self-employment also doesn't mean someone who is just scraping by. Contractors are self-employed.

Ssssshhhhhhh, Bonam. Stop shattering his illusions of the starving artist who is suffering for his labour of love!

[dre]

Ssssshhhhhhh, Bonam. Stop shattering his illusions of the starving artist who is suffering for his labour of love!

Blah blah blah. More retarded nonsense.