51–60 of 165 posts
I do not thinks artist are "punished" more for making bad works, as much as they are loosing that extra "excess attention" that our media-high society gives them. Of course, if you put regular human beings on a pedestal and make an Idol of them then any minor misstep will be unforgivable.
But must they be paid for bad work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The free market only cares about your present performance, not about your past. That's blatantly not true in art, if it's true at all. If the art market agrees that some random sketch was by Da Vinci, it's not valued on merit.
Free market assumes that goods from different producers are substitutable. Da Vinci has, clearly, a monopoly on original items from Da Vinci. So if you're an artist and people value your name, regardless of the product it's written on, you don't have the OP's problem. The problem described only applies if the consumer can get some other art that gives them equivalent satisfaction.
No it doesn't. A free market assumes that there are no constraining influences on trade except supply and demand. With the possible exception of a working contract law system.
Free markets happily allow for people to make buying and selling decisions for any reason they choose. If it happens to be for a non-fungible asset, no matter how pointless it may be to other parties, so be it.
Efficient markets imply restricting assumptions on fungibility, so that there can be a meaningful fair price, but it's not required in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the balloon dog example simply boils down to the fact that your work will only be seen as a rip-off. > There's a whole subset of the art market that is valuing on provenance not the physical object. Subset? I believe provenance is almost everything that matters in art, because it's what equips an artifact with meaning. Duchamp's urinal neatly exemplifies this.
> I believe provenance is almost everything that matters in art, because it's what equips an artifact with meaning. I've never "understood art", but when you phrased it like that it makes perfect sense. To me, provenance just isn't interesting. So I judge the pieces as they stand in front of me.
- Do I find this aesthetic
- Do I find this historically/culturally interesting or significant
- Do I find this a good investment
The problem is that people don't always make it clear which one they are judging by and end up talking past each other.
It's difficult for me to reason this sort of thing. Success, or even just being able to scrape out a living from art seems like a lottery. That is, there's not really any strong correlation between talent, effort and success. Plenty of starving, yet talented and/or hard-working artists. And plenty of successful artists with less talent or effort than their starving peers. So in this case, pushing for an environment t…
And finally, when a customer buys a piece of art, they're not just paying for that piece but also for the time that the artist spent finding themselves :)
It's difficult for me to reason this sort of thing. Success, or even just being able to scrape out a living from art seems like a lottery. That is, there's not really any strong correlation between talent, effort and success. Plenty of starving, yet talented and/or hard-working artists. And plenty of successful artists with less talent or effort than their starving peers. So in this case, pushing for an environment t…
That's the free market pressure. The free market only cares about your present performance, not about your past. And it is by many believed to be a good thing, because it's very meritocratic. But it has downsides, too. People are human, not machines, and sometimes need to rest too. That's why we shouldn't leave everything up to the free market (not even the one that works in liberal theory and is perfectly meritocrat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems pretty clear to me, especially with the context provided in the article itself: don't judge an artist solely by the last thing they made; don't write them off just because they're going through a bad patch.
People must be allowed to judge and write off artists solely based on the last thing they made
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I mean that it is vague. There is no context, there is only a clickbait title. If you can't parse the context from the writing, there is no context for you.
you are behaving quite patronising to this guy for no reason. He is challenging the premise of the piece and you are telling him he is too stupid to read the piece at all. Do you not see the irony here? Commenters, too, should be allowed to have bad takes
And that is assuming it is genuine misunderstanding and not, like, typical nerdy "I refuse to actual engage with those idiots from other fields, better just make up something".
I thought this was already the case, considering most "art" is garbage anyways (well, 90% of everything, according to that rule). I do not thinks artist are "punished" more for making bad works, as much as they are loosing that extra "excess attention" that our media-high society gives them. Of course, if you put regular human beings on a pedestal and make an Idol of them then any minor misstep will be unforgivable.
So, in the arguably creative work of creating new software, you are allowed to ship mediocre software at the start, but you do risk making a bad first impression that may be difficult to recover from.
But on the other hand, if you never ship the software product, your software can become outdated by the time you eventually release it, or you can put it off indefinitely and miss out on growth as a developer. So, there can definitely be a balance between releasing a product too early and making a poor first impression, and waiting excessively to polish a product, to the point where the software becomes no longer relevant or outdated.
[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/06/03/fixing-venture-cap...