Okay, a few quick points:
1) We say that our dollar is our vote. We support things that we like, and we boycott things we don't like. In this way we seek to build a better culture with the purchases we make and the things we choose to support.
2) However, many of us are selfish, and we find ways to cut costs so that we can have more money. Oh, don't feel so bad, that's what capitalism teaches us to do. Cut expenses, maximize profits. So, we cut "frivolous expenses" like music, art, opera, books... If we get music, we get burned copies or downloaded albums.
3) As we cut these costs, the artists stop receiving an income. Because of this, many artists have to stop being artists and become something they're not, like cabinet-makers.
4) As this cycle continues, we may find ourselves in a culture without art. Well, probably not. But maybe not as rich and varied. Maybe not as good. It's a negative effect.
Will we revert to a system of patronage? Like, where the only people who had money were the church, so the only music that made money were religious pieces? Or will we move to a system like (I believe) Iceland, where the government is a patron for the arts, simply to keep the rich, Icelandic culture thriving? Or will we somehow revive our economic conscience, and start paying for the things we value? Because, lets face it folks, we all benefit from art and music.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What's wrong with a patronage system? alot of companies already have more money than churches do, and on top of that, most work that visual artists make money off of is commissioned by an individual already.
it's not as if artists will stop producing just because there's no money in it, if that were the case none of us would produce now.
I suspect that a new kind of patron-like system will rise, with the internet as a significant part, a system of commission and print-selling, probably beginning through sites like deviantart.
basically I think it is probably faulty to assume that a system will be the same as the last time it occurred, when the social condition is vastly different.
as for the economic consience thing? ... I don't think it's very likely. but it's not the end of the world, movies still make plenty of money in box office sales to be profitable, people will always want to see their favorite musicians in concert, and someone is always going to want to see something they can't draw/paint done by someone else. Art will find a way, it's good at that.
What's wrong with the patronage system? It's commission with strings attached. If it's a church, then it's "Write this song, but it has to be religious." If it's a business, it's "Write this song that makes our business look good." That's not pure art. It removes the artist's ability to say something honest about humanity.
But you're right, artists will continue producing even if they don't get paid for it. The problem, though, is one of time. An artist will never be able to produce as much or as well if it's a hobby as they would if they could devote all of their energy to it.
Which is my problem. I don't think that the arts should be an afterthought. I think an artist should be able to focus solely on creating. And I'd like to envision a society where this is possible.
Oh, and you're right, movies still make plenty of money, but many of the movies that make bunches of money are not what I would call art films. So, this is my other problem with capitalism mixing with the arts -- it encourages artists to pander to what the masses will pay for. Which is why we have Britney Spears and Dude, Where's My Car? It's not art, but it'll sell!
Post a Comment