Hacker News Reader

"as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet."

You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid.

"If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art, then I'm sure many artists and even non artists will flood the market."

I'm not. Not until they can make a better living at it than most other professions.

The sad fact is that not only is making art looked down on in this society (as "emo", or "gay", or as not serious or worthwhile), but most people are not interested in expressing themselves artistically (partially as a result of the education system, and partially because of social attitudes towards artists and art).

Maybe as kids, a minority of Americans enjoyed an art class here and there, but they probably never dreamed of creating art for a living -- even if it somehow could earn them a decent wage (which it can't now.. not even remotely).

So I don't think even economic parity with other respected professions would suddenly flood the market with artists. Not until societal attitudes and the education system changes pretty radically. Until then, people will still want to go in to a more respectable and "achievable" career path.

Sure, if there's suddenly a swarm of artist billionaires like there has been of dotcom billionaires, then many money-hungry people will swarm in to the art field (as they have in to the startup industry). But I for one am not holding my breath.

"as far as being a professional artist, well guess what; when I was a kid I wanted to be a poet." You were certainly not representative of the typical American kid.

I think now kids say, "I want to be a rapper".

If you define art as "that thing that is emo" then you've created a tautology about art.

But if you look at art as things like: rap, creating electronica music, writing screenplays, etc... I think you'll see that society as really embraced art. It's just not called art anymore. It's the same fate as AI.

Is designing a building art? What about a website?

How about directing an advertisement or designing the title sequence for a television series?

Is researching information for a historical documentary an artistic or scientific vocation? Is such a harsh delineation even suitable?

Level design for a game? Texture design? Concept art?

Designing the circuitry for a synthesizer?

Many people are creating art for a living, though you may not see it as such. In fact, the authentic problem could be identified as society's very narrow definition of what "art" is. Artistic vocations are all over the place, and the prerequisites for entering such a career are just as, if not arguably more demanding than those for "technical" careers such as software engineering.

There's also frequently overlap between technical and artistic vocations and they exist side-by-side for many businesses so I disagree with the notion that people can't make money selling art (including the one belonging to the parent poster).

"Hasn't stopped me from writing poems in my spare time and engaging in my other pursuits."

This is the epitome of the lack of concern for creative practices that gnosis is referring to. It's a "spare time" thing. Anyone can do it. It's not a real job. It doesn't deserve the effort or respect that STEM gets. (I'm not saying this is what you believe, but this is a trope I've noticed.)

The idea that there is widespread respect for creative types of all breeds is hogwash. I work as both a front-end web developer and a web designer. I can provide the exact same quote for the exact same amount of work for those two fields, but I have to fight tooth and nail to get anywhere close to my estimate if it's a design project.

If ever a time comes when one could sustainably make money selling art

Now is that time.

Poetry is another thing altogether, but more visual artists are making more money right now than they ever have at any other point in history.

I think the time was probably in 1970. While you have a much larger audience today, and computers have kicked the artistic potential of individuals into overdrive, I think the main factor in a healthy arts economy is a wealthy society.

The America of the 70s hit around its peak wealth per person - it has been going down ever since. I don't think the advances in artist productivity trump the fact people make significantly less money than before, and buying art of any form (including entertainment) is still a luxury.

Hopefully the best is yet to come - if we can get a fabricated / automated food revolution, and automated housing, and automated raw materials mining / gathering in the next few decades, besides the fact most people won't have non STEM / artistic / law / business work to do, there would be more luxurious wealth to go around.

I guess it could go either in the direction of everyone goes destitute as a concentrated few own the automated means of production, or government intervention means everyone has the lower tiers of the hierarchy needs covered without straining oneself, leaving everything else to creative pursuits.

Although I didn't cite any stats (google "art market booming" if interested) it's not an opinion. There has been an art boom over the past decades, and there are more artists making a lot more money than ever before. Certainly more than in the 1970s.

As usual, the art business (like all business) primarily benefits the businessmen.

Most of the people profiting from the "art market boom" are collectors and other businessmen who buy art from unknown artists at rock bottom prices and resell them once the artist becomes famous (usually but not always after the artist's death).

In this situation the artist gets pennies on the dollar (if he's very lucky, as many artists don't manage to sell their work at all).

Some very few artists are lucky enough to even be alive by the time their art becomes highly coveted, and then are lucky enough to have enough business acumen (or lucky enough to partner with a scrupulous and competent enough agent) to capitalize on their fame, and actually make enough money from art to actually quit their job waiting tables or driving taxis and devote their energies full-time to making art.

Some very few of those very few might even become rich. But I would not call that a "great time to be making art". The overwhelming majority of artists in the US do not make nearly enough money to even reach the disgracefully low poverty line, much less be able to survive solely by selling their art or profit much from this "booming art market".

Thats probably because of the booming inequality that means some people have a lot of money. It is unclear that art is becoming more democratic or widespread other than this.

Not sure what you mean by "wealth per person", but pretty much everything is significantly better than it was in 1970.

The average North American is significantly wealthier today than they were in 1970. Compare an average car from 1970 and an average car today. Today's econo-boxes are Space Shuttles compared the caveman-cars of 1970 (Ford Pinto?). Both cost approx the same in inflation-adjusted work-hours.

Think about the TV that your average family was watching in 1970, and the average TV today. 60" 3D flat panel TVs for <$1000 in 2013 compared to ~$2200 (inflation adjusted) in 1970 for a 16" Motorola color TV.

He meant inequity.

Which is an argument I don't understand.

Imagine, instead, that compared to the 1970s, everyone today was twice as healthy as they were back then.

But, some people are 10,000x healthier than they were in the 70s.

I get the impression that the "inequity" people think we should prefer the 1970s, because at least then, even though we were all sicker, no one was 10,000x healthier.

It's such a strange position to me to desire everyone to be worse off, just so that a few people aren't much, much, MUCH better off. Does it really matter that a few super rich, or super healthy, people exist? Heck, even the super rich we're talking about end up giving it to charity anyway (what else is there to do with it, really?).

Anyway, /rant off.

"I get the impression that the "inequity" people think we should prefer the 1970s, because at least then, even though we were all sicker, no one was 10,000x healthier."

Except that in order to become healthier, you don't have to take someone else's health away.

I think a better analogy would be something like that (stupid) movie In Time, where people are given a certain amount of time to live when they turn 25. They can freely trade that time with others. Some wind up with millions of years of time, while the majority are cheated, exploited, and misled by the wealthy ("time is money") and face the risk of death at any moment as they scramble over what little time they have left.

As weak and flawed as the movie is, they're right about one thing: it doesn't have to be that way.

> Except that in order to become healthier, you don't have to take someone else's health away.

Yes an in order to become wealthier you do not have to take someone else's wealth away. A brief look at history will show this to be true

Yes, it matters.

Gross inequity is undemocratic. I cite Kevin Phillips' book Wealth and Democracy http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-Ame... but it's been researched and detailed ad nauseum.

More equitable societies are happier.

More equitable societies have better public health.

Just in case you need cites: https://www.google.com/searchq=More+equitable+societies+are+...

Lastly, I believe, but cannot prove, that more equitable societies are safer. Both domestically and internationally.