/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21205300]

Is art inherently tied to money or some form of payment?

[Anonymous No.21205301]

>>21205300
seeing as cave art exists, no

[Anonymous No.21205307]

>>21205300
If you paint a tree in the forest, and no one is around to see it, is it art?

[Anonymous No.21205309]

>>21205301
All of those people weren't doing art as some sort of hobby. Those were storytellers, teaching the soon-to-be adults the oral history of their people. Musicians weren't creating music for fun. They were group bonding, doing things like praying for rain/sun for crops, starting/completing/ending traditions of the tribe.
>cave paintings
Done by the smartest, and richest of them all. They need to have enough food stocked up, to start doodling in the sand/dirt. Which eventually leads to cave paintings. The people who actually made the cave painting art, would have to be smart enough and well-fed enough to not only have the time but understanding to create it. No dumb, starving artists existed, when they were making cave paintings. Dumb and starving people were too busy trying to get food, to focus on making art. No one with an empty stomach, with no food reserves, is going to be spending their time playing in the dirt to get the idea of creating art. Their stomach tells them that they need to worry about food.

Art is always tied to business, even during the pre-money era. It's not as if money was the creator of riches and trade. Money just made it easier.

[Anonymous No.21205314]

>>21205300
Miyazaki you despicable liberal moralist

[Anonymous No.21205317]

>>21205309
then why are cave paintings all about hunting? if they were at such a higher level of society they wouldn't have to participate in the hunt. and why is the starving artist such a common stereotype today?

[Anonymous No.21205321]

>>21205300
Isn't miyazakis philosophy to make things as accessible as possible.
Not saying he's a sellout but he's one of the only great artists who I've heard talk about making art accessible to the widest audience possible as an unmitigated positive.

[Anonymous No.21205476]

>>21205300
In anime and film, it is.

[Anonymous No.21205692]

>>21205317
Because they were done when we lived in tribes, and tasks such as education, weren't done for "free", but for the betterment of the tribe(increasing their "value" or "worth"), allowing them to survive better/longer. Or are you going to post proof that we weren't social creatures, teaching our young, in tribal life? Because my claim fits nicely with it.

[Anonymous No.21205706]

>>21205309
This post is a complete fiction. Any partiality of truth is marred by the dogmatic confidence of the rest of it.

[Anonymous No.21205727]

>>21205300
No, society is and artists need to live. Otherwise kids would be demanding money for finger paintings.

[Anonymous No.21205744]

>>21205706
Then why can't you actually refute it? If there's so much evidence against it, why don't you show it? It was their job to do it, not a hobby. They were "paid", in the same way that the rest were "paid" for their jobs of hunting, etc.
Just because they didn't have money, doesn't mean payments weren't made. They were paid in the necessities needed for continued life.
Still waiting on any of those sources, btw. If there's mountains of examples, then you shouldn't struggle to make a post with the proof(But you don't have mountains of evidence, because the further you go back in history, the less likely you are to find anyone doing art for no form of payment_.
That's a very new idea, like marrying for love. Just a new idea that was introduced before your birth, so you incorrectly assume that it was always like this.

[Anonymous No.21205784]

>>21205317
To add, that's not a menial task. That's an important source of food. You've confused OUR style of hunting, where if we don't shoot something we can just go to the store about buy meat, with their style of hunting, where if they don't shoot something, people suffer/die

[Anonymous No.21205995]

>>21205744
Stop talking about prehistoric times as if you're an expert lmao. Your claims come out of nowhere. I'm not going to waste my time writing a refutal to every single one of your ridiculous claims. Seriously, grow up or help yourself. You shouldn't have allowed yourself to get to this level of pseudery.

One thing of many I'll point out to show the complete baselessness of virtually everything you say with so much confidence:
>That's a very new idea, like marrying for love. Just a new idea that was introduced before your birth, so you incorrectly assume that it was always like this.
How old are you to think you can talk to me like this? 'WOAH SOMETHING OCCURED BEFORE MY BIRTH??? THAT'S AMAZING! I JUST LIVE THINKING CULTURE WAS ALWAYS SHAPED BY TWITTER!' Is this the revelation you think your words are having on me? I'm assuming you must be very young to think it's at all a novel observation or that anyone except the dumbest of the dumb live like that. But how far 'before your birth' was this introduced? Obviously you must admit it's prevalent in the romantic period right? Ignoring the thousands of other years of cultural representation of it, like in the medieval romance. Did you mean this, too, as 'before your birth'? You state the idea that marrying for love is a new idea with absolute confidence, when anyone with even a basic knowledge of history knows the opposite. Yes status and economic potential are less prevalently the driving force for a marriage than at any other time, but they have never absolutely dominated marriages across society. Ironic that you think of all things infrastructure comes before nature.

Or something from your initial post:
>Those were storytellers, teaching the soon-to-be adults the oral history of their people.
So supposedly this was done for a purely utilitarian purpose to bind the tribe together according to seclusive cultural ideas? Lmao. Yeah tribal people were thinking about it like that. No one was enchanted by the stories (ridiculous that you think cave paintings are limited to the interests of children-- which is one of the multiple faults in your implicitly reductive understanding of cave art), no one told those stories because they were inspired by them? Or people never danced to music for fun in tribal society? They never enjoyed the sound of tone? This is a retarded view of history. The fact that you trace monetary society's demands upon the artist back to any service served by art as a restriction at any point in time, even primeval tribes, is also ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.21206052]

>>21205995
>So supposedly this was done for a purely utilitarian purpose to bind the tribe together according to seclusive cultural ideas? Lmao.
No one said this.
>Yeah tribal people were thinking about it like that.
Yes. They used art in the exact way I described.
>(ridiculous that you think cave paintings are limited to the interests of children-- which is one of the multiple faults in your implicitly reductive understanding of cave art), no one told those stories because they were inspired by them? Or people never danced to music for fun in tribal society? They never enjoyed the sound of tone?
No one said this.

>The fact that you trace monetary society's demands upon the artist back to any service served by art as a restriction at any point in time, even primeval tribes, is also ridiculous.
Just the opposite. You are. I'm saying that the art was a holistic part of their tribal life. Done for purpose, either communication or education, and not something done for the fun of it.

[Anonymous No.21206057]

>>21206052
>Done for purpose, either communication or education, and not something done for the fun of it.
Your whole post is denying things you clearly said which now look silly. You tried to devoid the motivation of 'fun' (you didn't even consider aesthetic contemplation) from art.

[Anonymous No.21206079]

>>21205995
All artwork is exchanged for something. It's ALL done with "payments". As we're not talking about direct money transfers, but compensating educators for increasing the value of the tribe. Business and art are inherently linked. You don't understand the basics of what money is.
The time and effort needed to collect or acquire the supplies required some sort of start up costs & the time and effort required to produce the art has a cost(could have been used to collect food for survival). WE spend money for those things, because we've created a system outside of barter(as barter can't be taxed). But it's just a more abstract version of barter. We trade our labor for money, and then trade the money for what we actually want, because it's much easier than finding people who want to trade our labor for what we want(but you should always barter when possible over spending money directly, again no taxes on barter).
We talk in simplified terms of this abstract system.
What we're doing is trading our time and effort to collect this thing of value(money), to use to trade for the stuff we want(spending). Which is no different than the person spending their time and effort collecting berries and clay(labor), to make the pot(labor), and then trade(spending) for the food.

Do you think that there were freeloaders in tribal life? Yes or No.
I say there were no freeloaders for very long. They either contributed, or exiled. Contributing means that you get to take part in meals and social interactions. Exile means you don't, until you do contribute, and if that never happens you die.

They weren't living in societies where they walked around with drip and ice on their necks. Their payments were survival based, because their value was survival based.
I'm waiting for your sources. As I've repeatedly said.

You're afraid, because you'll quickly realize that those sculptures were also done by the richest people, to show off.
You know why we all have grass in our yards? It was a rich person practice. Them showing off how much land they can have, and not need it for their food production. So they filled it with pointless grasses and plants. Only they lived in places where water wasn't a problem.
The tradition slowly evolved into everyone trying to flaunt their wealth, to the point now, where people don't even see it as having wealth, but the bare minimum for not being absolutely poor. Perceptions shift.

[Anonymous No.21206329]

>>21205300
what? no, of course not

[Anonymous No.21206376]

>>21205300
>le "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."

[Anonymous No.21206490]

>>21205300
No, how can you even think that?

[Anonymous No.21206833]

>>21205300
Starving artists are either not good enough to feed themselves, are purposely censored by kikes or only become famous later due to kikes pretending they're good to sell their stuff without gaving to compensate.

[Anonymous No.21206852]

>>21205301
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.21206975]

>>21206490
>>21206376
Then address this post.
>>21206079
Art and business have always been linked, even going as far back as tribal life
.

[Anonymous No.21207049]

>>21205300
No. Most people practice some type of art as a hobby

[Anonymous No.21207777]

>>21207049
Lol, no. Artwork through all of history was done as a job. See the posts above explaining why. It's always been linked with business. More than your copium lets you admit.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.21207793]

>>21205314
He’s more Anarcho-primitivist at heart

[Anonymous No.21207851]

>>21205300
only for a handful of people

[Anonymous No.21207876]

>>21207777
Most people who paint do so because they like it. Few are good enough to earn money. The artists you see making money are the tip of the iceberg

[Anonymous No.21207960]

>>21205309
Well what you've done is make it so that any positive consequence whatosever counts as "payment". You can say we eat food and drink water for the "payment" of homeostasis.

Respectfully, it should be said that thinking people of every generation always want to reduce it all to something. Mechanics, Evolution, Libido. Now its economics (or computational data). But there's nothing about nature that invites being reformatted in these terms. There is no reason and no informative benefit.

>would have to be smart enough and well-fed enough to not only have the time but understanding to create it.
Hunter Gatherers spend most of their time idle. We have a picture of them spending every waking hour of life toiling against the elements and battling mammoths while starving half the time, but that is a romantic projection. The advent of agriculture brought the harder work (albeit with lower stakes, as there would be less violent confrontations with animals).

[Anonymous No.21207983]

>>21207960
>any positive consequence whatosever counts as "payment". You can say we eat food and drink water for the "payment" of homeostasis.
It is when you lived in a tribe, not our contemporary cities. When you live in a tribe, life is different, including what the tribe values. Commemorating part hunts/ensuring successful future hunts aren't art done for the fun of it. That's goal orientated behavior, with the goal of continued survival. It was done for the sake of a job. Not for the fun of it.

[Anonymous No.21208004]

>>21207793
Such a sickly looking pessimist. Could weight lifting have saved him from a life of low-t fueled depression?

[Anonymous No.21208070]

>>21207793
Hell yeah.

[Anonymous No.21208120]

>>21205300
No. Boethius wrote while rotting in prison.

[Anonymous No.21208156]

>>21207983
It sounds as though this is a dilemma between "fun" and "payment". Sure, it's neither. But it's not like payment unless you make everything like payment.

As for whether it is all utilitarian... Again, I think that's forcing our perspective, in which things can only be understood in terms of utility or money. It is one of those things you can forcibly reduce anything to, even "fun" can be reframed as being about utility, functioning to some practical end. I just don't think that way of thinking is going to be accurate in the end.

On that note, the spiritual experience of hunter gatherers is definitely farther from the "payment" end of this. They were characteristically animistic, putting greater value in things in themselves than we did. It's we who take every part of life and make it about something else. No, the hunter gatherers did not celebrate the hunt out of a utilitarian desire to improve future yields and company morale. They felt strongly about the hunt, and were thus inspired to depict it creatively.

Think about this for a moment. This is the basic process of art. If you want to deny that there exist real artistic or spiritual impulses that aren't just about economic utility, then the discussion terminates there. But to that I'd just ask why one should think that. It doesn't work that well, logically. It is simpler to assume that we have a variety of drives, oriented towards different things, and some of those are more related to the interest in economic utility and means-to-an-end thinking than others.

What I find especialy questionable, though, is this: We can admit that it is a basic process of art for there to be a strong feeling about something, and a resulting desire to depict it creatively. We can admit that this may be the case for artists today, who sacrifice health and wealth for the sake of this activity of expression.

So why on earth would you insist that the very beginning of art has to be the exception to this? This thing which represents such an essential element of human advancement - our capacity to reflect and drive to create, along with our depth of feeling for our abstractions - why must this natural human activity be completely hollowed out in this case? Here we are with our unusual activities of art and religion, which are not going to be easy to dismiss as economic utility in disguise, and you want to arbitrarily take away what would have stood as a step in this direction, something that had to have occurred at some point anyways?

No. Let art be art, let spirituality be spirituality. At no point in history has reductionism ever, ever worked, and least of all is there anything promising about the reduction of art and spirituality to economic utility. They are opposites, and the reduction requires assumptions resist evidence.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.21208303]

>>21208004
He has mood swings, but his pessimism is spot on here. He wants what's best for Japan. "poor" is subjective. This thin modern life is the real poverty.

[Anonymous No.21208315]

>>21205300
It’s what the writer of Spy x Family said. Basically said he has no attachment to any of his characters and thinks they are shallow but it’s what people want to see and he wants to make people happy.

[Anonymous No.21208320]

Miyazaki should have focused on being a better father. The grumpy old man is elevated and jerk off to way too much.

[Anonymous No.21208324]

>>21208156
Huh?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.21208382]

>>21208320
So do that yourself

Take Goro out to a baseball game and some ice cream

[Anonymous No.21208431]

>>21208315
Sounds reasonable

[Anonymous No.21210029]

>>21208431
How?

[Anonymous No.21211381]

>>21205321
His philosophy is to create literal propaganda, the greatest propaganda that mankind can manage, that is why he caters to the masses.
His philosophy is “You have to think your work can change the world, even if that’s impossible”. Therefore to change the world, a mass audience needs to be cultivated, but because of it’s normie appeal, ideas are bastardised in the process of its propagation. I don’t think he has labeled mass appeal ad unmitigated positive, because of his concept of the “beautiful but cursed dream” explored in The Wind Rises.

[Anonymous No.21211396]

>>21207793
What a strange thing to say. Does he advocate that poor countries stay poor? No, because that's inhumane. His entire outlook is hypocritical and overtly privileged by Japanese modernization. Sucks we had to bomb them, but at least be principled in your primitivism.

[Anonymous No.21212006]

>>21211396
He’s just an artist. They feel more than anyone, including your narrow minded sanctimonious liberal self.
There’s been a trade off of qualities from preindustrial to industrial, and it will all switch back again in due time. The pain is caused by the authoritarians, the “civilization” builders. We could have the best of both worlds, we could have used our finite fossil fuel legacy wisely, but we have not this far. Some believe it’s impossible for humans to behave wisely. Too many authoritarians

[Anonymous No.21212647]

>>21212006
This.

[Anonymous No.21212671]

>>21211396
He advocates that rich countries become poor again so they can become re-enriched with culture.

[Anonymous No.21212696]

>>21212006
>this far
Meant “thus far” of course

>>21212647
Thank you

[Anonymous No.21212710]

>>21211396
If I had to choose between being a fisherman and braving storms to feed my family, or subjecting myself to modern Japanese business culture in order to afford my Tokyo capsule apartment, it would be a coin flip

[Anonymous No.21212724]

>>21205300
Inherently? No. But it does have inherent value and so does money.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.21212754]

>>21212724
Art has inherent value.
Money does not. The objects and services we want and need have the value. Money is a bullshit way to quantify our value as people. It should never be elevated above a human being

[Anonymous No.21213000]

>>21207777
>>21207876
Major art projects have always been commissioned by the ruling class or State. As they are the only ones who have the money to fund it. Right now it's the kikes in charge, that why globalhomo values have been streamlined across all art platforms.
>>21206833
To make a living from it the art has to appeal to the ruling class (kikes).
I have an uncle who does photo art. It objectively is dumb and sucks and no one cared about it.
Then he moved to New York City and married a negress and had a mutant brown kid.
Then suddenly sure enough, some rich jews started buying his art there.
So he became a millionaire through art at the cost of permanently destroying his genetics. Like a good white goy appeasing his jew overlords.

[Anonymous No.21213159]

tie to money is more aparent nowadays because mass democracy is obsessed with money, finance and economics

[Anonymous No.21213168]

>>21213000
>Then he moved to New York City and married a negress and had a mutant brown kid.

i kneel, america you win this one

[Anonymous No.21213211]

>>21205300
No, it's tied to the percieved worth of the artist who did it. People then buy the art to be associated with the artist, hoping that some of the worth rubs off on them.

[Anonymous No.21214055]

>>21205300
There's a price for everything and I'm not just talking in terms of money.

[Anonymous No.21214146]

>>21213000
Most art isn’t major art commissions. Most people who paint do so because they like it

[Anonymous No.21214447]

>>21213211
Can you explain more?

[Anonymous No.21215697]

>>21205300
Inherently? No. But it does have inherent value and so does money.

[Anonymous No.21217087]

>>21212006
>Too many authoritarians
Not enough artists.

[Anonymous No.21217129]

>>21207793
I like Miyazaki but he is a hypocrite. He would absolutely seethe if Japan became a dismal, nigger-infested shithole like most of Europe. There is no "wild grasses taking over", retard, that's not what happens when your country is poor, that's what happens when your country can afford wild nature.

[Anonymous No.21217143]

>>21217129
You’re a moron and don’t understand what he’s saying. There’s nothing hypocritical about it.

[Anonymous No.21217179]

As for art, it is tied to results, like all other work. People believe that a "true artist" should be some kind of low-functioning autist who churns out LE ART regardless of what comes of it. The truth is that you work on something for a reason, whether that be validation, "changing the world", making a living, or even dreams of fame and glory. Everyone has his own reasons to work on something. Then on the other side today there is an army of rabid pigs who only want porn and meme garbage to retweet or propaganda that validates them for taking it up the ass. Thes subhumans enjoy the idea of "true art" not dying while they exclusively give all their rewards to the filthiest shit they can fit in their whore mouths. But with no results to reap, things won't happen, and "artists" realize there's no point at all and quit. So the retards seethe and go,
>HURRR UR SUPOSED TO HAVE A SHITTY DAY JOB AND DO THE ART SHITE ON UR SPARE TIME :(((( U DONT LIKE ART
I leave the duty of art to the faggot you're paying to draw what€ver trash porn you jack off to. That's your man.
Meanwhile I have quit this idiot pursuit, finally, and it was like cutting off a limb, and now I go camping in my spare time. Eat shit and choke on tranny porn, fucking mongrels. People are trash

[Anonymous No.21217191]

>>21217143
>don’t understand what he’s saying.
I get what he's saying but he's retarded. He's yet another leftist who believes that things will get better without money. Your country gets poor, it gets used up. He's naive and a retard.

[Anonymous No.21217213]

>>21217191
You’ve tipped us off to your naivety, anon.
Money ensures a place gets used up. “Development” is a liberal capitalist thing and it destroys, impoverishes.

[Anonymous No.21217235]

>>21217213
You really believe that nature is in a better state in a 3rd world shithole than in a wealthy country? Where are all the industries? Who's polluting the most? The big bad capitalist nations will simply use your country's resources. If your idea is that all countries should downgrade together, good luck with that. It's never going to happen, yes, "progress", "development" and all other modern cancer will never stop. We're on a one-way trip.

[Anonymous No.21217330]

>>21217235
“3rd world shithole” is a condition of industrialization. You don’t understand how that happens yet. Just look into it.
Nature as it used to be was a place we lived in for all our ancestors history. As harsh as it can be sometimes, it cycled gently and sustainably, regeneratively in fact. Quantity over quality is your bag.
And it isn’t my idea that we’re going to “downsize”. It’s an inevitable occurrence coming when the fossil fuels run out. Good luck in that oneway trip indeed.

[Anonymous No.21217343]

is art actually real and not just money maybe
do artist screech muh art is real yes
do artist need to pay rent yes
do artist have to accept their art may not make money if they stay true to them selfs yes
do artist screech at a wall that there art isnt making a living because they are doing what they think they should do yes
is the vast majority of the art world sell outs or just revolves around money and art galleries just being a business whoring out art and money laundering yes

artist have to make a living but being true to your self will not all ways mean that, some people sell out

[Anonymous No.21217375]

>>21217330
What I am saying is - regarding Miyazaki's quote - you cannot hope that your country "gets poorer" as if that would fix anything, because you are part of a global situation and that global situation involves a global market that will buy you out. If you are not a wealthy country you become a shithole. Formerly wealthy countries are getting poorer and they are becoming shitholes themselves. Soon everything will be a shithole. I am not apologizing for capitalism, yes you are right, the fact that 3rd world shitholes exist is the product of heavy industrialization and demand from wealthy nations (I could argue that you'd have this under frameworks other than capitalism, because this is a technological problem rather than a market problem) but this condition is inevitable and the kind of thinking that Miyazaki shows in that quote is plain retarded. I understand that he's an artist and it is his job to spew naive bullshit to keep the little goyim happy until they'll be trapped into adulthood but that doesn't make his reasoning sound. Like being "anti-war", you cannot be "anti-war" because other countries who are not "anti-war" will come and rape you. The only reason why Japan could afford keeping its international politics was that it was a wealthy country and a US ally.

[Anonymous No.21217403]

>>21217375
He specifically states that he wants the developers to go bankrupt. This notion of poverty/prosperity is the industrialist’s illusion. The Japan that grows wild grasses through concrete will be a prosperity of another kind.
> this is a technological problem rather than a market problem) but this condition is inevitable and the kind of thinking that Miyazaki shows in that quote is plain retarded.
This is a market problem and not inevitable. You excuse the men who control markets and prove how retarded you are.
You’re just scared. Stop posting now.

[Anonymous No.21217533]

>>21217403
Meanwhile Ghibli is animating in 3D with a skeleton crew because China is bootlegging all the Totoro merch, which was the company's #1 income. This is the reality of things. Things run on money. You need money to make art. Especially good art that takes time and effort does not pay for itself. Without funding from investors, Miyazaki wouldn't have made a single movie.

[Anonymous No.21217666]

>>21217533
>Things run on money.
LOL

Artists are forced like the rest of us to rent and buy things with ridiculous prices stamped on them. It’s a deal made by power elites. We don’t actually need it. There is no actual value.
The liberals of fourchan. HA!

[Anonymous No.21217757]

>>21217666
>We don’t actually need it. There is no actual value.
OK, comrade. While you think about fulfilling this plan, that artist will need an income, so pay him or he will quit. It's not a threat, it's more like growing a plant. You need to gave water to that plant or it will die. The plant isn't threatening you, it's just how it works.
I'm not going to open a discussion on how art has always flourished when it was institutionalized and supported by the wealthy, because art is by and large an institution of the powers in charge and very little culture survived that was not propped up by utilitarian purposes (mostly propaganda for the elite, religious institutions and other shit).
I'm only going to focus on the fact that especially today, the artist has very little incentive to literally waste time and effort on something that will just be inconsequentially thrown in a virtual landfill that nobody will look at because 99.9% of people only look for smut and other shit like that, and even THAT shit which is the only material with something resembling a market built around it is so saturated it is in turn becoming pointless to work on.
Your idea of the "artist" as a low-functioning autist who will bleed himself dry to entertain you does not exist IRL.