I think a reasonable person can dislike capitalism and wish for a more socialist world where art is free for all takers. But a reasonable person can't expect that a socialist world would produce nearly as much art. That's bat-shit thinking.His justification is that the time and effort he spent building Dilbert, pretty much dawn-to-dusk for 10 straight years with minimal time off, wouldn't be worth it if he wasn't able to achieve his level of economic wealth. This is, basically, the main problem with strict communism: the number of people willing to put forth the time and effort to become a doctor, start a business, create new technologies, etc., wouldn't be wouldn't be so inclined if they received the same rewards as a cubicle worker who spends more of his work hours on the Internet than doing actual work. This being said, I can certainly appreciate his argument.
However, it falls apart in that the vast majority of artists don't have his level of dedication (or, to be honest, talent). The vast majority of artists putz around with their painting or sculpting or hot gluing or cross-stitching, assuming that it should be enough to make them a living. Most artists, i.e., the non-commercially viable artists, don't have the talent or dedication to actually put out art that other people would actually place value in (shown, in our society, by paying money for it). As they can't make a living as an artist, they instead find a job working as a barista or English Garden's cashier. If we lived in a communist society, they'd be able to make the same living creating their shitty art that they would by ringing up my flat of azaleas. It's just the good artists - the ones who put in the time, effort, and dedication to make items of true value to society - who would be disinclined to create art.
The net result isn't that we would have less art, as Adams suggests. We would have less good art and a whole lot more shitty art, while I'd have to learn how to steam a latte without burning myself.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment