Comments on: What is art worth — and how do we pay? http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/12/what-is-art-worth/ ... at the intersection of media, technology, business and the web Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: adventureran warped » Contrary views make for excellent debate http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/12/what-is-art-worth/comment-page-1/#comment-337773 adventureran warped » Contrary views make for excellent debate Fri, 02 May 2008 00:50:46 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2335#comment-337773 [...] mathewingram.com/work - What is art worth — and how do we pay? by Matthew Ingram Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can [...] [...] mathewingram.com/work – What is art worth — and how do we pay? by Matthew Ingram Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can [...]

]]> By: Chris http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/12/what-is-art-worth/comment-page-1/#comment-374429 Chris Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:21:17 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2335#comment-374429 Oh I don't think it's anything to do with music tax propaganda like Arrington assumed, but Kaplan's update posts of 'My point is: how can we really debate the value of music or movies or photography, how compensation works, etc when we can’t, since 1989 when the NEA fell apart, figure out how to make art viable as a commercial practice and how to value and support it as a part of the fabric of a functioning society?' and 'How do we value cultural artifacts when there is little to no value of culture itself in the educational systems, public sector and society at large?' seems pretty grounded in older battles as well as parochial (speaking as a Brit, what's this 'we' shit, kemo sabe?). While it's an arguable point, he's not really asking a forward-looking tech/culture intersection question, is he?<br> <br>That said I'm still sympathetic to his changed/clarified point - I get the same way when, i.e., people talk about education tech without considering underlying educational principles. Oh I don't think it's anything to do with music tax propaganda like Arrington assumed, but Kaplan's update posts of 'My point is: how can we really debate the value of music or movies or photography, how compensation works, etc when we can’t, since 1989 when the NEA fell apart, figure out how to make art viable as a commercial practice and how to value and support it as a part of the fabric of a functioning society?' and 'How do we value cultural artifacts when there is little to no value of culture itself in the educational systems, public sector and society at large?' seems pretty grounded in older battles as well as parochial (speaking as a Brit, what's this 'we' shit, kemo sabe?). While it's an arguable point, he's not really asking a forward-looking tech/culture intersection question, is he?

That said I'm still sympathetic to his changed/clarified point – I get the same way when, i.e., people talk about education tech without considering underlying educational principles.

]]> By: mathewi http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/12/what-is-art-worth/comment-page-1/#comment-374428 mathewi Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:52:02 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2335#comment-374428 I'm not so sure -- that might be what Mike Arrington thinks, but I<br>think Ethan's concerns are much broader than just getting some<br>government funding. I'm not so sure — that might be what Mike Arrington thinks, but I
think Ethan's concerns are much broader than just getting some
government funding.

]]> By: Chris http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/12/what-is-art-worth/comment-page-1/#comment-374427 Chris Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:31:15 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2335#comment-374427 I don't think they're proof of anything, but I think they're evidence that financial incentive isn't necessarily a bad motivation for artists and that it can have side benefits as well as produce good art,. So (not that I'm accusing anyone specifically of this, this started with Kaplan asking very general questions after all) dismissing its existence and taking a Romantic view of the artist as beholden only to his muse - now *there's* a modern notion - might mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If society wants diverse artists that means society should provide as diverse incentives as possible. <br><br>It's all moot anyway since it turns out what Kaplan was really complaining about was NEA funding which is boring old kulturkampf stuff and certainly not as philosophical as it first appeared to be :-( I don't think they're proof of anything, but I think they're evidence that financial incentive isn't necessarily a bad motivation for artists and that it can have side benefits as well as produce good art,. So (not that I'm accusing anyone specifically of this, this started with Kaplan asking very general questions after all) dismissing its existence and taking a Romantic view of the artist as beholden only to his muse – now *there's* a modern notion – might mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If society wants diverse artists that means society should provide as diverse incentives as possible.

It's all moot anyway since it turns out what Kaplan was really complaining about was NEA funding which is boring old kulturkampf stuff and certainly not as philosophical as it first appeared to be :-(

]]> By: Chris http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/12/what-is-art-worth/comment-page-1/#comment-340598 Chris Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:21:17 +0000 http://www.mathewingram.com/work/?p=2335#comment-340598 Oh I don't think it's anything to do with music tax propaganda like Arrington assumed, but Kaplan's update posts of 'My point is: how can we really debate the value of music or movies or photography, how compensation works, etc when we can’t, since 1989 when the NEA fell apart, figure out how to make art viable as a commercial practice and how to value and support it as a part of the fabric of a functioning society?' and 'How do we value cultural artifacts when there is little to no value of culture itself in the educational systems, public sector and society at large?' seems pretty grounded in older battles as well as parochial (speaking as a Brit, what's this 'we' shit, kemo sabe?). While it's an arguable point, he's not really asking a forward-looking tech/culture intersection question, is he?<br> <br>That said I'm still sympathetic to his changed/clarified point - I get the same way when, i.e., people talk about education tech without considering underlying educational principles. Oh I don't think it's anything to do with music tax propaganda like Arrington assumed, but Kaplan's update posts of 'My point is: how can we really debate the value of music or movies or photography, how compensation works, etc when we can’t, since 1989 when the NEA fell apart, figure out how to make art viable as a commercial practice and how to value and support it as a part of the fabric of a functioning society?' and 'How do we value cultural artifacts when there is little to no value of culture itself in the educational systems, public sector and society at large?' seems pretty grounded in older battles as well as parochial (speaking as a Brit, what's this 'we' shit, kemo sabe?). While it's an arguable point, he's not really asking a forward-looking tech/culture intersection question, is he?

That said I'm still sympathetic to his changed/clarified point – I get the same way when, i.e., people talk about education tech without considering underlying educational principles.

]]>