The monetization of art marked the downfall of humanity

[Rebbington]

Art is an integral component in life it provides endless entertainment art can be anything really but in this particular post I'm talking about media when ads started being implemented and subscriptions became mandatory it has literally destroyed entire generations yes pirating exists but its not the same imagine how awesome life would be if you could watch ad free movies and shows motivation = purpose no purpose = no life someone needs to destroy these media goblins art should be free to enjoy when people make art to make money it loses emotion that makes it great when someone actually has motivation to create it gives it drive and feeling

 

[Magonia]

this has parallels to Hitler and his criticism of art of his time.

Its not that its monetized, its that jews control the art world.
Jews are winning so much that they dont care they have monopoly on art mostly hollywood and use it for their interests and not for the enjoyment of they goys. If real human beings ran it ads wont be as omnipresent and intrusive.

 

[Lain]

If there wasn't monetization of art, we'd have a lot less art. While I get your argument, at the same time, if people don't get paid for their work, they'll have to take a full-time job doing something besides art. If the consumer is willing to pay money for art, it's because it was good enough for that specific consumer that it warranted paying for it. If the art was complete trash, it would financially flop, if the person had zero enthusiasm for their work, it's likely that it'll be trash. To get exceptionally good at anything you have to put in absurd amounts of time into it and enjoy what you're doing, getting paid for art at least ticks one of the boxes for masterpieces to be made.

 

[Rebbington]

If there wasn't monetization of art, we'd have a lot less art. While I get your argument, at the same time, if people don't get paid for their work, they'll have to take a full-time job doing something besides art. If the consumer is willing to pay money for art, it's because it was good enough for that specific consumer that it warranted paying for it. If the art was complete trash, it would financially flop, if the person had zero enthusiasm for their work, it's likely that it'll be trash. To get exceptionally good at anything you have to put in absurd amounts of time into it and enjoy what you're doing, getting paid for art at least ticks one of the boxes for masterpieces to be made.

I don't have an issue with selling art I have an issue with money being the key motivator in the creation of if less would come from it so be it 99% of modern art is dogshit

 

[Riddler]

No., you're on the right track but it's not monetization

What made art shitty started with the downfall of monarchy and advent of democracy. Mass literacy was a mistake

Artist once courted a class of tastemaking patrons, but now they have to appeal to swathes of low IQ subhumans.

 

[Rebbington]

No., you're on the right track but it's not monetization

What made art shitty started with the downfall of monarchy and advent of democracy. Mass literacy was a mistake

Artist once courted a class of tastemaking patrons, but now they have to appeal to swathes of low IQ subhumans.

I mean there hundreds of things that has lead us down this ditch but money has powered it the most

 

[duracel]

jfc how do u expect the people that make art to survive

With your ideals, you should be paying more for “soulful” art to encourage artists to continue creating.
Even if it was historically the rich that sponsored art, there should be a culture that values art and incentivizes the purchase of it. I think the wealthy spend less on art than they used to, it seems like new money people sit on wealth or exclusively use it to invest in making more money. Could be that the modern tech/entrepreneur lifestyle focuses on minimalism, practicality, and personal wealth, whereas older nobility wanted to showcase their power/wealth? Could also be related to the decreasing popularity of religion

modern art also took a hit with the popularity of apps like instagram where because of the algorithm, artists have to focus on quantity and consistency of posts rather than quality if they want their art to be spread.

Basically if being an artist was seen as a respectable and well paying job in society, so many artistically inclined people wouldn’t end up pursuing corporate careers

very repetitive comment and basically just reiterating what lain said but this take pisses me off
It also pisses me off so much when anime fans make jokes or express pity for animators’ working conditions, when a vast majority of those people are consuming it pirated

 

[Rebbington]

jfc how do u expect the people that make art to survive

With your ideals, you should be paying more for “soulful” art to encourage artists to continue creating.
Even if it was historically the rich that sponsored art, there should be a culture that values art and incentivizes the purchase of it. I think the wealthy spend less on art than they used to, it seems like new money people sit on wealth or exclusively use it to invest in making more money. Could be that the modern tech/entrepreneur lifestyle focuses on minimalism, practicality, and personal wealth, whereas older nobility wanted to showcase their power/wealth? Could also be related to the decreasing popularity of religion

modern art also took a hit with the popularity of apps like instagram where because of the algorithm, artists have to focus on quantity and consistency of posts rather than quality if they want their art to be spread.

Basically if being an artist was seen as a respectable and well paying job in society, so many artistically inclined people wouldn’t end up pursuing corporate careers

very repetitive comment and basically just reiterating what lain said but this take pisses me off
It also pisses me off so much when anime fans make jokes or express pity for animators’ working conditions, when a vast majority of those people are consuming it pirated

Ur kinda misinterpreting my entire point on purpose the sale and purchase of art is fine but paying to enjoy it is disgusting if you think someone should pay money to watch a movie you should be castrated the main drive in creating should be yk the drive to actually want to make something that resonates with yourself/others look at John Wayne he made close to nothing and was one of the best actors In the Western genre obviously that's just one example but it's a common pattern of the older less paid guys being better than people that get paid millions to talk I should be able to watch whatever the fuck i want without ads or a pay wall its my right as a human being I let these people share the same air as me so they should share their creations it's the same as electricity it should be free
I've heard ur very response alot actually obviously different but very similar like the whole "pirating indie games is le bad" if it's not physical it should be free

 

[Rebbington]

If the art was complete trash, it would financially flop

$43.8 million for this?!

An abstract painting by New York artist Barnett Newman that features a field of blue paint crossed by a ragged white line sold last night for $43.8 million — more than most Manhattan penthouses — t…

nypost.com

I mean just look at any abstract art

 

[Rebbington]

jfc how do u expect the people that make art to survive

With your ideals, you should be paying more for “soulful” art to encourage artists to continue creating.
Even if it was historically the rich that sponsored art, there should be a culture that values art and incentivizes the purchase of it. I think the wealthy spend less on art than they used to, it seems like new money people sit on wealth or exclusively use it to invest in making more money. Could be that the modern tech/entrepreneur lifestyle focuses on minimalism, practicality, and personal wealth, whereas older nobility wanted to showcase their power/wealth? Could also be related to the decreasing popularity of religion

modern art also took a hit with the popularity of apps like instagram where because of the algorithm, artists have to focus on quantity and consistency of posts rather than quality if they want their art to be spread.

Basically if being an artist was seen as a respectable and well paying job in society, so many artistically inclined people wouldn’t end up pursuing corporate careers

very repetitive comment and basically just reiterating what lain said but this take pisses me off
It also pisses me off so much when anime fans make jokes or express pity for animators’ working conditions, when a vast majority of those people are consuming it pirated

I'll simplify my reply because you couldn't read my responses

You: "PAY FOR SHIT BEING AN ARTIST IS A REAL THING!"

Me: "nah"

 

[duracel]

I should be able to watch whatever the fuck i want without ads or a pay wall its my right as a human being I let these people share the same air as me so they should share their creations it's the same as electricity it should be free

if it's not physical it should be free

ik ur trolling but genuinely the most retarded thing i’ve read in a while

 

[Rebbington]

ik ur trolling but genuinely the most retarded thing i’ve read in a while

It's not a troll and instead of just saying it's retarded actually give a substantial reply

 

[Rebbington]

ik ur trolling but genuinely the most retarded thing i’ve read in a while

Yk the whole if its not physical it should be free is in reference to music and media and some other luxuries

 

[duracel]

Yk the whole if its not physical it should be free is in reference to music and media and some other luxuries

no I’ve never heard of this and I don’t agree with it, feel free to explain it

 

[Rebbington]

no I’ve never heard of this and I don’t agree with it, feel free to explain it

Ur just asking me to do what I asked you to do

 

[Rebbington]

no I’ve never heard of this and I don’t agree with it, feel free to explain it

What is there to elaborate on? I should be able to enjoy things that people have made you disagree its a fairly subjective topic but media has lost its grandeur that is a fact

 

[duracel]

Why should something that requires labor be free? idgi do you want the government to subsidize art?

 

[Rebbington]

Why should something that requires labor be free? idgi do you want the government to subsidize art?

everything requires labour you don't get paid to walk or shit

 

[duracel]

bro what lmfao

 

[Rebbington]

bro what lmfao

Just because you put effort into something doesn't mean you should be paid and again I have no issues w companies buying the rights and people buying the actual paintings but it should be free for me to watch and look at

 

[duracel]

Just because you put effort into something doesn't mean you should be paid and again I have no issues w companies buying the rights and people buying the actual paintings but it should be free for me to watch and look at

Again I still don’t understand it, if everyone has this mentality, why would anyone buy art and then how would anyone make art

 

[Rebbington]

Again I still don’t understand it, if everyone has this mentality, why would anyone buy art and then how would anyone make art

It's simple if you want the original painting you can buy the painting if you want to air certain shows or films you can buy the rights idc what they do just don't fuck w my viewing

 

[Rebbington]

Again I still don’t understand it, if everyone has this mentality, why would anyone buy art and then how would anyone make art

my point boils down to this without the monetary incentive alot of shit artists would dissappear and the ones with passion would remain

 

[duracel]

Aight I really just don’t agree with you on this, I think consuming other people’s art is a privilege not a right

 

[Rebbington]

Aight I really just don’t agree with you on this, I think consuming other people’s art is a privilege not a right

Stop using negroid idioms!!!! It's fine to disagree dude it's a subjective topic again

 

[duracel]

my point boils down to this without the monetary incentive alot of shit artists would dissappear and the ones with passion would remain

No one rn becomes an artist because it’s a high paying job, the predominant reality is that artists are forced into corporate styles or graphic design or unrelated careers because what they like to create makes no money

the quality of art is arguably mostly related to how long someone cultivates their skill, which requires them to devote extensive time to making art, which means they will not have time to make money in other ways. art supplies themselves require money as well and artists need to be alive to create art which requires money

 

[Rebbington]

No one rn becomes an artist because it’s a high paying job, the predominant reality is that artists are forced into corporate styles or graphic design or unrelated careers because what they like to create makes no money

the quality of art is arguably mostly related to how long someone cultivates their skill, which requires them to devote extensive time to making art, which means they will not have time to make money in other ways. art supplies themselves require money as well and artists need to be alive to create art which requires money

Everyone needs money artists alr know how the future will be for them alot of graphic designers just do it because it's fun n easy if they truly had passion they would just neet or do it as a hobby

 

[duracel]

The Renaissance era wasn’t full of great artists because they had more passionate people, it was because of their culture or the wealthy commissioning art, allowing artists to hone their craft full time

 

[Rebbington]

The Renaissance era wasn’t full of great artists because they had more passionate people, it was because of their culture or the wealthy commissioning art, allowing artists to hone their craft full time

The renaissance produced alot of good artists but not an insane amount of memorable ones and like you said the culture is a huge variable we have a higher quality of life and artists can survive off the money they make if they are successful enough and there hasn't been that many good ones

 

[duracel]

The renaissance produced alot of good artists but not an insane amount of memorable ones and like you said the culture is a huge variable we have a higher quality of life and artists can survive off the money they make if they are successful enough and there hasn't been that many good ones

I see… what time period produced the greatest amount of memorable artists

 

[Rebbington]

I see… what time period produced the greatest amount of memorable artists

It depends obviously on the kind of art and the style I'm not denying that the renaissance wasn't the best time for art

 

[Rebbington]

Can you just get to the conclusion already I'm pretty sleepy and we are going in circles and again this is subjective its like arguing what animal is the coolest

 

[duracel]

It depends obviously on the kind of art and the style I'm not denying that the renaissance wasn't the best time for art

I asked you so we can look at the art industry of that time period and see what allowed it to flourish

 

[Rebbington]

I asked you so we can look at the art industry of that time period and see what allowed it to flourish

Art has always been appreciated sometimes more sometimes less but there has always been a market for it

 

[duracel]

I don’t think it’s that subjective but basically if you want more good art you should have a system that encourages artistically inclined people to spend time making art

 

[Rebbington]

I don’t think it’s that subjective but basically if you want more good art you should have a system that encourages artistically inclined people to spend time making art

That's unrelated to the topic of my thread I am talking about money and how it corrupts passion if these people need to be coddled into being artists chances are they don't care about it so much it should come naturally to these people and what they do should have meaning ffs everyone is an artist its just about timing and meaning

 

[Rebbington]

Look im going to sleep just reply or whatever n I'll get to it in the morning just try not to be arbitrary

 

[duracel]

That's unrelated to the topic of my thread I am talking about money and how it corrupts passion if these people need to be coddled into being artists chances are they don't care about it so much it should come naturally to these people and what they do should have meaning ffs everyone is an artist its just about timing and meaning

You’re worried about cutting out the “bad artists that do it for money”, but you should be more worried about passionate artists that can’t pursue it to the fullest bc it’s not financially viable

I agree money does direct artists to create whatever makes them money, and maybe that was an issue w periods like the Renaissance. But having money in general (from commissioned work etc) will allow them the economic freedom to create what they’re more passionate about

 

[Rebbington]

You’re worried about cutting out the “bad artists that do it for money”, but you should be more worried about passionate artists that can’t pursue it to the fullest bc it’s not financially viable

 

[duracel]

This was helpful, I think I understand your perspective better now
tired rn tho, I’ll reply sometime tomorrow

 

[Rebbington]

This was helpful, I think I understand your perspective better now
tired rn tho, I’ll reply sometime tomorrow

OK dokie

 

[duracel]

OK dokie

sorry I ran away

With the bike example, if it’s paid, people that are passionate about it will definitely do it
u can hopefully tell the passionate people based on the quality of their work, + they will get paid to do what they love and get better at it so that’s an ideal situation

part of my argument is that I don’t think the most artists get paid well and can live decently off of that
but i haven’t checked stats and idk
Regardless I don’t think wanting money makes someone any less of a passionate artists, they’re separate values imo

As for van gogh, I think society failed him then by not valuing his art enough to pay for it
He was able to pursue art because his brother gave him money, but what if he didn’t have his brothers money? He would’ve had to stop painting much sooner and most of his now famous paintings might not exist

It seems like van gogh himself wasn’t even initially interested in pursuing painting

I get the sentiment of wanting art to be separated from money but I don’t think it’s realistic (unless the gov sponsors it) and it only makes it harder for artists to make art

As for TV shows, I agree, I think the standard model of paying for it is weird
With art imo you should pay after you see it based on the quality, but it’s hard to expect everyone to pay like that in good faith
My ideal setup is where there’s a minimum cost u have to pay to unlock a show and at the end u tip based on how good it was. that way shows can cover production costs but when a show does well the studio is supported with more money and encouraged to continue
Some issues with this model is that it’s very much majority based so similar types of shows might be consistently popular and people won’t ever challenge their taste
But the current standard is a small group decides what to air to everyone so idk pros and cons to both

Most importantly I think it’s unfair to expect artists to sacrifice just so everyone else can enjoy their art

 

[duracel]

ah I forgot to say I agree I think abstract art is mostly a meme

u should blame whoever pays for it for not having better taste tho

 

[Rebbington]

sorry I ran away

With the bike example, if it’s paid, people that are passionate about it will definitely do it
u can hopefully tell the passionate people based on the quality of their work, + they will get paid to do what they love and get better at it so that’s an ideal situation

part of my argument is that I don’t think the most artists get paid well and can live decently off of that
but i haven’t checked stats and idk
Regardless I don’t think wanting money makes someone any less of a passionate artists, they’re separate values imo

As for van gogh, I think society failed him then by not valuing his art enough to pay for it
He was able to pursue art because his brother gave him money, but what if he didn’t have his brothers money? He would’ve had to stop painting much sooner and most of his now famous paintings might not exist
View attachment 97673
It seems like van gogh himself wasn’t even initially interested in pursuing painting
View attachment 97674


I get the sentiment of wanting art to be separated from money but I don’t think it’s realistic (unless the gov sponsors it) and it only makes it harder for artists to make art

As for TV shows, I agree, I think the standard model of paying for it is weird
With art imo you should pay after you see it based on the quality, but it’s hard to expect everyone to pay like that in good faith
My ideal setup is where there’s a minimum cost u have to pay to unlock a show and at the end u tip based on how good it was. that way shows can cover production costs but when a show does well the studio is supported with more money and encouraged to continue
Some issues with this model is that it’s very much majority based so similar types of shows might be consistently popular and people won’t ever challenge their taste
But the current standard is a small group decides what to air to everyone so idk pros and cons to both

Most importantly I think it’s unfair to expect artists to sacrifice just so everyone else can enjoy their art

 

[Moondust]

If there wasn't monetization of art, we'd have a lot less art. While I get your argument, at the same time, if people don't get paid for their work, they'll have to take a full-time job doing something besides art. If the consumer is willing to pay money for art, it's because it was good enough for that specific consumer that it warranted paying for it. If the art was complete trash, it would financially flop, if the person had zero enthusiasm for their work, it's likely that it'll be trash. To get exceptionally good at anything you have to put in absurd amounts of time into it and enjoy what you're doing, getting paid for art at least ticks one of the boxes for masterpieces to be made.

That's why there needs to be socialism

 

[Moondust]

If there wasn't monetization of art, we'd have a lot less art. While I get your argument, at the same time, if people don't get paid for their work, they'll have to take a full-time job doing something besides art. If the consumer is willing to pay money for art, it's because it was good enough for that specific consumer that it warranted paying for it. If the art was complete trash, it would financially flop, if the person had zero enthusiasm for their work, it's likely that it'll be trash. To get exceptionally good at anything you have to put in absurd amounts of time into it and enjoy what you're doing, getting paid for art at least ticks one of the boxes for masterpieces to be made.

Also there's another thing I think you're not factoring. Just because something makes a lot of money doesn't mean it's good lol. Otherwise mainstream shit wouldn't be garbage. First of all of course we all know normie consoomers will watch anything. Also something could be popular among rich people and therefore make more money than something popular among the general population

Like for example some movie about golf or horseback riding will probably make more money because those are rich people activities

 

[Lain]

Also there's another thing I think you're not factoring. Just because something makes a lot of money doesn't mean it's good lol. Otherwise mainstream shit wouldn't be garbage. First of all of course we all know normie consoomers will watch anything. Also something could be popular among rich people and therefore make more money than something popular among the general population

Like for example some movie about golf or horseback riding will probably make more money because those are rich people activities

Yes, but the more money involved, the more people paid and work that'll be created as a result. Let's say that every 1 in 20 anime in the 1980s was kino as an example and now it's only 1 in 50 in 2023. It's still better to be in the present day because the anime industry is flooded with work, comparatively there's probably like 5x more anime being made. I never said that the amount of money a work makes determines how good it is (to me), only that the general trend of any creative industry is positive when more money is allocated to it. We have so much more content now than ever so it's fine if a higher % is trash than in the past, the total amount of kino is still higher in the end, though if you focus on the trash it might not seem like it.

 

[Lain]

Suppose I should've clarified, there is a lot of shit work that gets huge sales, though someone out there enjoys the content enough to spend money on it. Using the anime example, you have the isekai genre that's usually full of somewhat trashy titles that gets funded by hikkineets, they still enjoy subpar anime (in my eyes) but their funding of the isekai genre as a whole allows kino like Mushoku Tensei to get an adaptation so it's still a net benefit to me as a consumer at the end of the day even if the average normie or even hikkineet buys trash. Because I'm not gonna buy anything and their financial support to the industry allows the space for better work to be created.

 

[kaang]

$43.8 million for this?!

An abstract painting by New York artist Barnett Newman that features a field of blue paint crossed by a ragged white line sold last night for $43.8 million — more than most Manhattan penthouses — t…

nypost.com

I mean just look at any abstract art

that's just a money laundering technique