ideally it should be normal to make great work to the point that there’s no reason to have recognition and acclaim. I believe that that world exists. Ideally art should only have importance to the community around that artist.
Yeah I just completely disagree with this. Why should art only have importance to community surrounding an artist? People can enjoy art from all kinds of different contexts that they would never be familiar with. That is one of the beautiful things about art is enjoying perspectives unlike your own. And even if it were desirable to have no especially acclaimed artists, I don't think differing recognition for different art would ever disappear because people will always have differing preferences, and some art will resonate with more people or more effectively. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that if people are more or less equally able to pursue art if they choose. I see no problem with some art getting more attention than other art in and of itself. It's the denial of the possibility to make art to so many that is an issue.
Doesn’t seem fair that one person gets to explore an entire microcosm to its fullest, go on this intense spiritual journey and develop their highly personal craft while one person toils in a mine.
Some people will always choose not to make any art, or choose to make less or spend less time improving their art than others. Framing it as issue of fairness that some people are only artists for work and others are not assumes everyone has equal desire to produce art, or to improve it constantly.
Not to say no one working a mine wouldn't like to make art too, or even that many artists could have other jobs. But even in an ideal world, I value equal opportunity to choose art production instead of attempting to make art a completely despecialized activity because people have differing levels of interest in it and because one can spend a lifetime perfecting their art, so allowing the most driven to specialize enables art that requires or is greatly improved by much higher investments of time than people just making some art after work could or would want to make.
Good art will always find its audience, it doesnt need to be a commodity or institutionalized.
I disagree with you entirely, I think people are alienated from the arts so they appear to be uninterested in art. I think art is an essential part of humanity. If given the knowledge, the community and tools to do art, no one would pick miner over art/music/literature etc. I think the way and time people invest in art would change if everyone had the same opportunity.
Insanely specialized artists should be earned by a society that can reasonably accomodate them and not fuck over some dude working in a mine.
Good art will always find its audience, it doesnt need to be a commodity or institutionalized.
How though? It doesn't need to be a commodity, but any kind of display of art by not-the-artist is some kind of institution, whether it's a museum, an online archive, a concert venue, etc. How would art finds it audience if not through some kind of institution?
I think people are alienated from the arts so they appear to be uninterested in art. I think art is an essential part of humanity. If given the knowledge, the community and tools to do art, no one would pick miner over art/music/literature etc.
Maybe so, but I really doubt that everyone would pick to be a specialized artist over some other job that is self-actualizing, like a doctor or a teacher. You are fixated on this miner example as its a difficult, tedious job to say art should not be a specialized profession. I think that goes too far and ignores real differences in preferences that will always be. Even if everyone wants to make art, maybe that's true in an unalienated world, if they want to at differing degrees, that's enough for specialization.
Insanely specialized artists should be earned by a society that can reasonably accomodate them and not fuck over some dude working in a mine.
There are enough resources today to accommodate both specialized artsts and miners, and every other job. I think this buys into the false idea that scarcity is what impoverishes workers doing things like mining and not the allocation of existing, plentiful resources. I don't want to fuck over the guy in the mine. I think the example of the DPRK is a good one here, where mining jobs are highly, highly rewarded to compensate for their lack of appeal. Society can support artists and support miners, loggers, garbageworkers, etc. even more
Yeah I just completely disagree with this. Why should art only have importance to community surrounding an artist? People can enjoy art from all kinds of different contexts that they would never be familiar with. That is one of the beautiful things about art is enjoying perspectives unlike your own. And even if it were desirable to have no especially acclaimed artists, I don't think differing recognition for different art would ever disappear because people will always have differing preferences, and some art will resonate with more people or more effectively. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that if people are more or less equally able to pursue art if they choose. I see no problem with some art getting more attention than other art in and of itself. It's the denial of the possibility to make art to so many that is an issue.
Some people will always choose not to make any art, or choose to make less or spend less time improving their art than others. Framing it as issue of fairness that some people are only artists for work and others are not assumes everyone has equal desire to produce art, or to improve it constantly.
Not to say no one working a mine wouldn't like to make art too, or even that many artists could have other jobs. But even in an ideal world, I value equal opportunity to choose art production instead of attempting to make art a completely despecialized activity because people have differing levels of interest in it and because one can spend a lifetime perfecting their art, so allowing the most driven to specialize enables art that requires or is greatly improved by much higher investments of time than people just making some art after work could or would want to make.
Good art will always find its audience, it doesnt need to be a commodity or institutionalized.
I disagree with you entirely, I think people are alienated from the arts so they appear to be uninterested in art. I think art is an essential part of humanity. If given the knowledge, the community and tools to do art, no one would pick miner over art/music/literature etc. I think the way and time people invest in art would change if everyone had the same opportunity.
Insanely specialized artists should be earned by a society that can reasonably accomodate them and not fuck over some dude working in a mine.
How though? It doesn't need to be a commodity, but any kind of display of art by not-the-artist is some kind of institution, whether it's a museum, an online archive, a concert venue, etc. How would art finds it audience if not through some kind of institution?
Maybe so, but I really doubt that everyone would pick to be a specialized artist over some other job that is self-actualizing, like a doctor or a teacher. You are fixated on this miner example as its a difficult, tedious job to say art should not be a specialized profession. I think that goes too far and ignores real differences in preferences that will always be. Even if everyone wants to make art, maybe that's true in an unalienated world, if they want to at differing degrees, that's enough for specialization.
There are enough resources today to accommodate both specialized artsts and miners, and every other job. I think this buys into the false idea that scarcity is what impoverishes workers doing things like mining and not the allocation of existing, plentiful resources. I don't want to fuck over the guy in the mine. I think the example of the DPRK is a good one here, where mining jobs are highly, highly rewarded to compensate for their lack of appeal. Society can support artists and support miners, loggers, garbageworkers, etc. even more