111–120 of 273 posts
Rewards in creative fields have always been distributed on a very steep pareto curve, and the expected financial ROI across all aspirants is non-positive. This situation isn't some new development of the internet age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like the patron system of old ended up turning into the modern professional sports system instead of supporting the arts. Which sort of shows the shift in priorities at least the rich have had in more recent years.
Except it's really local governments bankrolling the stadiums and upgrades. And then ticket and merchandise sales are mostly the fan base, not some patronage class. Maybe sponsorships are closest to patronage but those are still more of business transactions. It's all just business, and the wealthy aren't donating anything (unlike arts patronage).
There have been a few Spotify-clone studies that showed 70-80% of musical success was attributable to "quality" but the ranking of the top 10-20% was essentially random ("luck" to use the author's word). Now consider Dall-E and other art-making tools. If it becomes easier to make quality art, then the luck factor gets much more important, because the baseline quality is higher. So one can ask whether e.g. the Mona Li…
This is bad prose. It's flowery, self-indulgent, and lacking substance.
There have been a few Spotify-clone studies that showed 70-80% of musical success was attributable to "quality" but the ranking of the top 10-20% was essentially random ("luck" to use the author's word). Now consider Dall-E and other art-making tools. If it becomes easier to make quality art, then the luck factor gets much more important, because the baseline quality is higher. So one can ask whether e.g. the Mona Li…
There is a steady, near linear association with “quality” (no matter how you abstract this definition), and then the more exponential gains are typically exceptional instances with more unique circumstances for how they were measured along this portion of the curve.
Another widely measured example is income. Most people have jobs with increasing pay commensurate with market demand, but the top have exceptional combinatorial factors involved: e.g. they are BOTH highly skilled AND own a business or have some obscure high risk job, were an inventor of something, receive substantial trust fund income, etc.
The more boring way of stating this is… exceptional results are by definition exceptional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is so patronizing.
Constructive feedback is not patronizing. People need to be able to receive constructive feedback and improve, without feeling attacked. I did not detect snark, or superiority in this feedback comment. Instead, it seems to genuinely attempt to offer constructive feedback. The parent pointed out a specific fragment that needs re-work, which is an actionable item for the OP. Perhaps it could have been framed more posit…
Otherwise, I agree that it appears helpful and applicable.
I have a story of watching someone go big on twitter with their art. I met a girl from New Zealand with incredible talent on discord. She painted amazing humans and wonderful creatures. She would paint daily and really struggled with getting a following.
One day she posted a cute Pokemon girl with some busty cleavage... the post took off. She got thousands of likes and a flood of followers. She said she didn't want to resort to sexy smut to get a following, but the attention was too powerful. 6 months later she has 30,000 twitter followers and a whole community oriented around her work of drawing sexy Pokemon characters and anime girls with increasingly skimpy outfits.
While not the path she hoped for, she found her niche and as such she's made it into the limelight on twitter. So I think the moral of this story is that there is a path for artists to flourish online, but you need to find and target a specific area or interest... or draw lewd babes...