Good Art vs Evil Artists - Essay Rejected; Discuss Here Instead

[Voboy]

I’m pretty sure you’re aware that money and power work in unison, because money uses power to preserve itself and power is fueled by money. To give a person money is to give a person power. I’m opposed to giving harmful things power, which means I’m opposed to giving them money.

That makes little sense to me, but at least it's a consistent position.

I don't see how the nature of the art changes merely because its creator isn't getting financial benefit.

 

[Yarglenurp]

That makes little sense to me, but at least it's a consistent position.

I don't see how the nature of the art changes merely because its creator isn't getting financial benefit.

It makes little sense that money is power? What do you call the ability to get a bunch of strangers to show up to a place to do something that has no direct tangible value to them? It’s called a hiring people for jobs. People sell out their own communities or their own families for money all the time. Money is incredibly powerful stuff.

As for your second point… what? You don’t see the difference between living and dead? If I buy into Joe Rogan’s shit, that is basically paying into whatever political platform the dude contributes to and his overall ability to voice his opinions in society. Seeing as I don’t agree with selling out the country to the Russians for peanuts on the dollar, I’m inclined to say, “fuck that.”

If I say I enjoy the works of Shakespeare… the dude’s dead. There isn’t an agenda that he can propagate anymore, and Nazis aren’t clamoring to claim him as their rallying symbol.

 

[Voboy]

It makes little sense that money is power?

That's why I asked for clarification. Money's your hangup, not mine; that's the part that makes little sense to me.

The art is the art. Once it's created, it exists independently of its creator, his power, and his finances. If the art is good, then it gets enjoyed. It's kinda that simple to me.

 

[Yarglenurp]

That's why I asked for clarification. Money's your hangup, not mine; that's the part that makes little sense to me.

The art is the art. Once it's created, it exists independently of its creator, his power, and his finances. If the art is good, then it gets enjoyed. It's kinda that simple to me.

Well, there’s no absolutes here. However, the copyright laws of most countries tend to strongly disagree with that “independent of his finances” part.

 

[Voboy]

Well, there’s no absolutes here. However, the copyright laws of most countries tend to strongly disagree with that “independent of his finances” part.

Not a problem. Again, we're coming at this from two different sides. But the OP was addressing ethics, not legality; I don't think copyright law has anything to do with this topic.

I don't really think a consumer's ethics ought to have a pricing component, when it comes to appreciation of artistic merit (or non-merit). It's an interesting concept to me. I'll give it some thought.