Quote:
Originally Posted by ahi
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?
I don't see it... but, as I stated, I feel we have little (but our chains) to lose! 
- Ahi |
Well, I personally would very much not like to see the current system over turned by a return to the patronage model of art. While it was responsible for some great art, one could also be sure that it was responsible for art that represented the interests of the elite in society.
I am not saying the current system is perfect (certainly the current terms of copyright are way too long), but it does serve the purpose of producing popular works of literature and music as well as Television and Movies. The fact that you disdain the corporations' interest in whatever sells the most copies suggests that you also believe that the public at large has poor tastes (after all, they are the ones buying, reading, watching and listening).
Actually, I am always amazed at how many books get published every year that are not intended for mass consumption.
I notice that you have completely ignored the fact that the current system has been responsible for some truly great art. To answer your question: What do we have to loose? The next Hemingway, or the next Beatles.
--
Bill