I think today's commercialization of art is rather different from that of hundreds of years ago, Bill. Working for an employer or a patron who is desirous of artefacts (or literature) of great beauty (of whatever sort) is different from massive multinational conglomerates wishing for whatever of whatever qualities that sells the most copies.
And while I do not dispute that the past would have had its mediocre artists, the vastly larger underclass (who was mostly illiterate and uninterested in folly like art, when there was real work to be done) was a rather natural limiting factor.
As for the future, I would welcome a return to the employer/patronage model. Assuming those employers/patrons were wealthy human beings, not corporations. Those not able to gain a patron may indeed never have sufficient time to invest for real greatness--but why is that a problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
I am pointing out that the current paradigm could well be threatened by file sharing copyrighted material.
|
I don't see it... but, as I stated, I feel we have little (but our chains) to lose!
- Ahi