Should Money Be Stripped from the Ideal Evaluation of Arts?

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

I'm dropping a discussion here with a few brief remarks which I might elaborate on when time permits. I'm not a philosophy or arts major - I'm just a high schooler. This could be some senseless midnight farting. I just hope that the fart still stinks.

1. NFTs. What do you mean by non-fungible? Any piece of art before digitalization is non-fungible by itself, why need a token - except for transaction? When it comes to transaction - does that not, by literal meaning, uncontrollably make it fungible? And the worst part: Why TF are the arts on the platform now, mostly if not entirely, evaluated with ETH? I am aware that I am ignorant of all the financial concepts behind but any explanation cannot retort that it is some capitalist bs trying to heterize art into money-making tools. I don't buy the "copyrights" or "artists making for a living" bs either; most artists are signed into corporates that take away most of their income, and I don't think you need $92 million to make for a living adequate to continue your artistic pursuit. Art is Art and money is money. I actually don't give a s**t if people straight-up call it "products to profit" and make billions - the problem is that calling these products art is actually corroding aesthetic standards; it reinforces the monetized value as the signifier of the aesthetic value of arts without justifying it.

2. Posthumous copyrights. Actually, I had been fine with whatever people are doing with "arts" nowadays as a classical music fan. I do not speak for any artists but I assume anyone who pursues the career of a classical musician already accepts the likelihood to be alienized by the mainstream market and put their primary goal as to make better music or reputation instead of more money, since nothing can be or is to be done to the situation under the free market. What really triggered me is how much dough the corporates continue to make after the artists' death. I was pissed off last week about the Glenn Gould estate whose s**t I should've known earlier. Basically Gould was a Canadian pianist famous for playing Bach and was signed to Sony but he died more than 40 years ago. Now he's close to the most well-known interpreter for Bach and still has over a million monthly listeners on Spotify. Guess what Sony does to extend the copyrights: they took fragments of his recording samples and put them into a hip-hop album. I reserve from making comments on hip hop but FFS - they named one of the songs "Baetoven" and basically the song is just a rapper repeatedly saying "baetoven" - you don't name the composer properly and your music is s**t, fine, how do you explain the sample is actually from a MOZART'S piece? They also go as far as changing Gould's PFP on Spotify to the cover of the album with graffiti all over his face; I'm pretty sure Gould would have been the most out-spoken opposer against this posthumous copyrights had he known what Sony was to do to him half a century later.

If you want to actually pay respect to artists and their descendants - pay them enough in advance when they live! You are so willing to invest in so many s**ts and you don't want a single cent of deficit from an artist? Most corrupted bs I ever know.

I blame the symbolic culture bred by unrestrained capitalism that uses currency to symbolize any kind of values, that of arts included. Once you dominate the symbolic interpretation of arts you structuralize the moral and logical interpretation that follows in accordance with it so you make an apparent close loop that seems to justify this entire bs that the Art is worth the money it is tagged.

Raymond

The cost of a piece of art tells absolutely zero, nada, niente, about the work. I think you are absolutely right when you say that these money values are created by money hungry wolves in the guise of arty snob clothes. Van Gogh, poor during his lifetime, would have turned in his grave had he witnessed the abuse of his art.
80 000 000 for his sunflowers! God damned!

New2K2

I was actually thinking about this yesterday and I think the problem is money is the only way of expressing worth in our society, the moment the concept of giving something other than money becomes normal this sort of nonsense would die down.
Value has to be tangible and exchangeable for now apparently though

Raymond

↪New2K2

Like Einstein said, "Not everything that counts can be counts can be counted, not everything that can be counted counts."

Hermeticus

In the world abroad from online boards, I am a somewhat passionate artist too. I don't earn any money with it but some years ago me and some buddies officially registered an art association and we occassionally do street art projects and such.

Now while I essentially take this as a serious hobby, some of my friends decided they want to make art their carreer choice and enrolled in art university. The consensus among them became pretty clear pretty soon: They universally hate the economic world that is art. It is full of pretentious elitism and hardly makes any sense at all. The only thing that matters in that world is the people you know.

Unfortunately, they still view it as necessary to take part in this silly play if they "want to make a living from art." and I'm afraid with cheap mass-produced art available out of printers and discounter stores, they are right in believing that most of them wouldn't be capable to cover their living expenses outside of this artificial economic system.

T Clark

If you want to actually pay respect to artists and their descendants - pay them enough in advance when they live! You are so willing to invest in so many s**ts and you don't want a single cent of deficit from an artist? Most corrupted bs I ever know. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Here's a link to a circular from the U.S. Copyright Office describing the rules for copyright protection.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

It can be a bit complicated, but in general, copyright protection lasts for about 100 years. Is that reasonable? Well, when I die, my family gets to keep and use my assets. That's one of the reasons I've saved, so that there will be money for them after I die. Seems like artists should have the same ability. Is 100 years right? I don't know.

Cuthbert

What do you mean by non-fungible? — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

I wouldn't spend all that money on a token that I can't even funge.

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

↪T Clark

I didn't read for long, but it's from what I have read, it's actually well over 100 years: "The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: life plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years, depending on the nature of authorship." as from your link. If we set aside the discussion of whether the length of copyright protection is reasonable, the problem there still is - is this decided by artists themselves or the legislators who convince the artists to agree with the law? Of course, under the current environment in which capitalism dominates the logic of speech the legislators can justify it as "out of concern for their families" and the artists may "choose" to benefit their descendants - I am arguing the same point as in the main post: if you do care about artists being able to make a living and help their families, why not enact laws that ensure profit for them during their lifetime so they have total control of the assets they deserve? When you grant posthumous copyrights you are not necessarily granting them to the artists, but to the corporations that they've been signed to, whom they have no control of in terms of whatever to do with their work after their death. Just as in the example I raised of Glenn Gould and Sony, Sony obviously has committed sacrilegious acts upon the works of Gould under the protection of that posthumous copyrights - who has benefited more from here, Gould and his family or Sony? As in the conclusion of my main post, this rule has been so well structured in explaining its logic and morality that people follow it as if it is righteous; nonetheless a little bit of reconsideration tells me at least that there's certainly a better way for arts and artists had capitalism not dominated the rule-making of art evaluation.
To take even one more step back, the works of certain artists remain undervalued until the market recognizes their worth after the lifetime of the artists - now, doesn't the word "market" again link you to something?
Again I'm nowhere near offering a better solution to this. I'm just sharing something that upon my reflection agonizes me quite a bit recently.

praxis

Art is Art and money is money. I actually don't give a s**t if people straight-up call it "products to profit" and make billions - the problem is that calling these products art is actually corroding aesthetic standards; it reinforces the monetized value as the signifier of the aesthetic value of arts without justifying it. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

You seem to be suggesting that there are universal or objective aesthetic standards. Is that right?

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

↪praxis

You see, I shouldn't have written philosophy with anger and I take responsibility for the inaccuracy of my language. But no, I am completely against objective aesthetic standards. What I am arguing is that when money or market gradually makes up a greater role in considering the worth of art, we seem to accept that how much art is worth lies completely in how much revenue an artist makes, or how willing the public is to consume for the art. Had there been many diverse standards to look at arts, the involvement of money drastically narrows down the scope we can look at it.

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

↪Cuthbert

Once you spend money to own it, a transaction is performed already, so it's already funged.

praxis

What I am arguing is that when money or market gradually makes up a greater role in considering the worth of art, we seem to accept that how much art is worth lies completely in how much revenue an artist makes, or how willing the public is to consume for the art. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

I don't see why you would need to argue that. If art is bought and sold in a particular price range then clearly there is an agreement among art buyers and sellers about the art's monetary value.

We all agree that a $100 bill is worth one hundred dollars. The paper and ink itself doesn't contain the value. It's a promise of value or social agreement of value.

Obviously, ignorance can be exploited and people can be fooled into believing that something has greater value than it actually has. This is true in many aspects of culture and not just the art world. Maybe that and problems with financial speculation, or materialistic culture in general, are what you resent?

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

↪praxis

If art is bought and sold in a particular price range then clearly there is an agreement among art buyers and sellers about the art's monetary value.

Is it really an agreement or enforcement by the more powerful, in this case, the wealthier, upon the less - but since the more powerful frame the language and culture at the same time, they get to "justify" this enforcement and make people accept it as a norm or mutual "agreement"?

Yes, it can be argued that this is the case for close to any aspect - it's just that being materialistic about some does not trigger me as much as being so about arts.

Tom Storm

What I am arguing is that when money or market gradually makes up a greater role in considering the worth of art, we seem to accept that how much art is worth lies completely in how much revenue an artist makes, or how willing the public is to consume for the art. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Not really a new idea, from his New York base, the Australian art critic, essayist and writer Robert Hughes wrote and made documentaries about this very problem about 35 years ago. The commodification of art in its current expression started in the 1970's.

Despite this there is always the difference between something being intrinsically good and something being valued by a market. I suspect they will remain different things since the market is not an arbiter of virtue but of value.

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

↪praxis

For example, you find out about an artist on the Internet and you really like his or her works. You want to support him or her. This is where the problem begins. Close to everywhere is hinting you the only means to do so: join the YouTube membership; subscribe to the Patreon; buy the merch, etc. This may not be the way you want to support the artist, nor does the artist find money the optimal means to support him. But because he needs money to live and make more arts, and more importantly, the corporations, if not the society in general, makes money paying so much more convenient than other methods and their goal is simply to suck as much as possible from your wallet, you are pressured to receive the signal that if you want to show the symbol of supporting him, it has to be through money. The assumption this creates would be - if people don't buy the merch, subscribe to Patreon, or join the membership, people don't appreciate the work.
Does the artist or do you have a say about what the values of the works are now? On the market, technically no. It's the sense of powerlessness inflicted upon both sides.
Or, if you really don't give a fuzz about whatever others say at all and do art for art's sake, I do have to admire that as that's what I have never encountered.

D2OTSSUMMERBUG

↪Tom Storm

I guess we'll have to keep bringing it up then since the problem is not addressed sufficiently and continues to worsen.

Tom Storm

I guess we'll have to keep bringing it up then since the problem is not addressed sufficiently and continues to worsen. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

It's never gone away. One of the biggest debates in the Western world is the marketisation of everything from art to education, health services to prisons. This is one of the reasons Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel (whose project is all about this) has been in recent years one of the world's most popular thinkers. People have been concerned about this for a long time.

praxis

Yes, it can be argued that this is the case for close to any aspect - it's just that being materialistic about some does not trigger me as much as being so about arts. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Undervaluing art for its own sake is a lamentable symptom of a materialistic and unhealthy culture, in my opinion, so in that way I can appreciate what I think you're saying.

Agent Smith

We need some standard of measure that's

1. Universal (accepted and understood by all).
2. Objective (calculations possible).
3. Subjective (personal values expressible i.e. I can convey that something is worth more to me than you by willing to spend more).

Money fits the bill.

BC

↪D2OTSSUMMERBUG

The "art market" is not eternal. A lot of stuff has been bought at high prices, and may or may not hold value. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

It may well be the case that some art work will remain very expensive, and that some presently expensive art will lose a lot of its cash value.

Whatever happens, the cash value of art is mostly a concern of the buyers of art and their heirs. You want to spend $100,000,000 on one art work? Well, if you have the cash, go right ahead. After the revolution we will confiscate all your stuff anyway. Take good care of it in the meantime. (This applies only to rich people. 99% of us do not come close to that category.)

I like sushi

↪D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Fashion is fashion. The youth is prone to appearing 'fashionable' and being 'fashionable' may mean despising monetary wealth or aspiring to it.

You tend to find that mainstream artists dream of being fringe or underground whilst underground artists dream of commercial success. The stress between the two encourages people to sway back and forth.

Worth is subjective, but for most items in life there is a general consensus. Artists making money is more applicable to certain fields in certain times. The music industry is waning because live music is overtly commercial now. The Beatles and Elvis basically turned the industry on its head and the advent of MTV followed by the internet has started to make current forms of music less 'fashionable'.

Look to what teenagers aspire to be to see how things have changed. Once it was every teenager wanting to be in a band and now it is more about esports, podcasts, and streaming. These are the heroes of today not Bowie or Elvis. Now people want to be Elon Musk or Joe Rogan.

Anything that gets popularised comes from underground sources. Hip-hop was alive and vital and then it became commercial ... it is just how things are. The 'value' will shift with novelty. The true artists don't care much for money they just make stuff because that is what they do. Others fawn over them or are inspired by them.

Money is a reasonably good fungible means of trading and interaction between seemingly different areas. Monopolies are the issue. Another issue is that of immediate reward. That is why education is plagued by business models that are detriment to education as the 'pay off' of a good education is hard to measure/predict and takes a considerable amount of time to reap the benefits from. Some times school students do poorly in one year because the students in that year are just dumb yet schools are often rewarded based on the performance of students ... it is insane.

Money is better than barter ... but maybe with current communications and technologies a combination of the two may be more possible? No idea what that will look like though ... it would take someone extraordinary to come up with and implement an alternative.

Should Money Be Stripped from the Ideal Evaluation of Arts?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions