Re: "art" & money, was: amanda palmer

[doc rossi <docittern@gmail.com>]

Thanks for putting me back on track - I got swallowed up in the whole  
piracy thing, too.   Value is a tricky subject - but for the purposes  
of this thread we have to think of value exclusively in economic terms  
rather than any other kind. That said, sure, art and music as  
commodities are dropping in value. The whole technology thing - which  
is great - is also in a way devaluing the jobs of professional artist,  
musician, producer and recording engineer. I guess the only thing pros  
can do is give some kind of added value - better quality art, sound,  
production. Something that people are willing to pay for.  I wonder  
how much longer people will pay for it. We have the opportunity now of  
producing very high fidelity recordings, but people listen to MP3s and  
seem to think they're fine.


On Oct 8, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Mech wrote:

> At 3:43 PM -0700 10/7/09, Miko Biffle wrote:
>>
>> > next: who should compensate them?
>> Whoever decides that they would like "the product" for themselves.  
>> This is basic commercial business ideology. Please don't suggest  
>> that what's mine should somehow be available to other's FOR FREE,  
>> without my authorization. That's called THEFT or PIRACY.
>
> Wait a second: I think we're going off on a -- while perfectly  
> valuable -- tangent, it is a tangent nonetheless.  Not to drop the  
> main topic entirely, I don't think the crux of the main argument has  
> much to do with piracy per se.
>
> Rather, I think we should remember that what we're truly dealing  
> with is the simple and easy commodification of music and "art".
>
> In recent years, technology has made it easy to produce music on  
> one's home PC that is technically far superior to anything that was  
> readily produced in professional studios only a couple of decades  
> ago.  This has enabled many, many, many, more people to realize  
> their musical aspirations than has been possible at any other time  
> in history.  We all know that already, and I think very few of us  
> view it as a bad thing.
>
> The problem, however, is what happens to that music once it has been  
> produced.
>
> Well, a lot of it is put out there for free, as a labor of love.  
> This, for better or worse, has created a glut in the market.  You  
> can download hours upon hours of high-quality music without ever  
> even being asked for a cent in return.
>
> So, the issue is not an audience that demands, "Give us your music  
> for free or we will pirate it anyway."  No, the issue is rather that  
> the audience is saying, "If your music isn't free, then we'll just  
> go download music from Joe over there, who *is* giving it away for  
> free."
>
> The argument deals with the de-valuation of music, not whether it's  
> being "stolen".
>
> And, like I said, the threads on piracy are valuable and should  
> continue as a side-discussion.  However, I believe that de-valuation  
> of music (and "art" in general) is a more difficult -- as well as a  
> more important and long-ranging -- issue.  So I, for one, don't wish  
> for that point to get lost in a wash of anti-piracy sentiments.
>
> Thoughts...?
>
>       --m.
> -- 
> _____
> "beyond this window, night is shuddering and the earth grinds to a  
> halt
>   beyond this window, something unknown is watching you and me...."
>