What if their “art” is actually and utterly a pile of steaming shit?
That typically sells better than art that isn’t made of literal shit.
You mean like Tracy Emin’s bed? It gets featured in the Tate Modern of London.
Ohhhh man …
Now that’s a cooked thought. How hot was your shower
Based
That is too logical and convenient to be allowed under psychopathic capitalism that runs the world
deleted by creator
What are your opinions?
deleted by creator
With how advanced the current technology is, people are actually no longer need to work in order to survive or have basic necessities. But artificial pressure were created so people have to help amassing the wealth for billionaires/corporates.
Sure, there might be some people who’re want to do nothing and live in as a lowest class without anything other than basic necessity but there would be very small amount of them as human usually strive for the better QoL. And we also shouldn’t just let people die if they don’t want to work. If they want to be at the bottom of the society, just let them be. “You have to work in order to survive”-Age actually should have ended long ago if not for the severe inequality issue we’re having. Yes, it won’t solve EVERY problem but it wil solve MANY problems and there aren’t many downside to it other than billionaires having lower number in their bank accounts.And drugs, alcholism, and theft issues weren’t caused by being jobless, it caused by many issues like lacking proper education, bad upbringing, security issues, and being penniless. Also alcoholism problem among the poor is actually a cognitive bias. According to the statistics, middle class has more alcoholism issues than the lower class
It’s obviously a tradeoff, but there will be enough people to do the necessary work anyway, even with UBI, and no one else should feel pressured to do work to survive.
deleted by creator
Not all Art has the same value.
You think someone who delicates their life to musical excellence should get the same as someone who sticks seashells onto things?
What t about if they only produce one seashell covered mug per week? Per month?
If only there was some mechanism to objectively measure the value of what we produce.
Do… Do you think that mechanism is market? Like, you seriously think that?
deleted by creator
Recent times have shown two important things to me.
One: People want to create regardless of any reward related to it. The excuse that people need to be rewarded in order to do anything valuable is completely wrong. People, in general, want to do things that other people find valuable and beneficial and bring joy to other people. We are very social, and that desire is nearly universal. If one has no concerns over their continued comfortable existence, then the vast majority of people would dedicate themselves to something they enjoy which is also useful and helpful to others.
Two: People will very happily give rewards to those who create things that they want and enjoy. Even people who themselves have little, will give some to those who have brought them happiness and joy with their work and effort. We see this in all the people donating even when they receive nothing in return for it.
Point two suggests that universal income is theoretically unnecessary, but point two is unreliable. Yes, people will give, but they won’t give in a steady, reliable way that can be counted on to meet another’s needs regularly. And just as importantly, they don’t really give if the quality of the creations are low, which…fair enough, however, this limits the potential creator’s ability to practice and get better, since they cannot devote their efforts to the thing they enjoy that would, if they got good at it, be enjoyed by many; instead they are forced to devote their efforts to continued survival and comfortable existence.
People should just be paid to exist at this point regardless of what they contribute.
Most people are wholly incapable of doing for themselves so just give them subsistence money so they can sit in their house and not bother anybody else.
I think that anyone who wants to contribute somehow in a positive way to their society, environment or country, should get enough money to have their basic needs fulfilled. Being it full-time or part-time work, volunteering or just helping out random people from time to time (pick trash alone somewhere and stuff).
I don’t approve ending people’s lives because they create harm to others. Of course it’s a whole different thing when you compare a feared dictator who hates humankind versus someone who spends all their time trolling people out of their minds in the Internet just because of the lulz. But I don’t know, what would be a good solution in these or any other cases.
If their art doesn’t make enough money then it’s clearly not in enough demand. It sucks but thats how things work. Only a small number of artists can ever coexist at the same time.
deleted by creator
I mean, I’m sure the people who painted their hands in caves were doing all kinds of things. i.e. they had “jobs” even if those jobs were compensated for by something other than money.
deleted by creator
Yeah but like… That’s also true of capitalism. Grain can still paint from his desire to paint. Grain just goes and does a job instead of hunting because that’s how he and his fellow humans will be able to eat later or get other services that they want/need. If Grain is good enough, Grain doesn’t need to hunt at all because Grain trades art for food.
Hobbyist work exists outside of economic systems…
I guess you can argue Grain just came across the materials and the cave and didn’t have to pay … where as now you need to buy stuff to actually do the painting… But also that stuff is way nicer and made by other humans.
Also, I bet if Grain was spending all of his time painting in the cave and not helping with the hunt, his fellow caveman would tell Grain he needs to do his part if he wants to eat.
If their art doesn’t make enough money then it’s clearly not in enough demand.
Unless you burden the word ‘enough’ with far too much work in that sentence, then that implication doesn’t necessarily follow. It is possible for something to be in great demand by those without money to spend. Furthermore, it is possible for there to be issues with the logistics between the source and the demand (e.g. demand is very physically distributed, or temporally limited and/or sporadic).
Money is a very particular way of empowering and aggregating only some demand. It ties the power of demand to history and not moral or egalitarian considerations for one.
Interested to know - what political party do you support?
I have absolutely no idea what that means.
But to answer the actual question, I don’t disagree that universal basic income would be great I just don’t think that the above arguement is a particularly great one for it. There are many better arguments that could be made and I don’t appreciate the false dichotomy that OP is putting out that because it just makes the whole idea seem hippie and stupid.
Also been aggressive with people who even marginally disagree with your opinion isn’t productive.
I asked you a question out of curiosity. There was nothing aggressive in my comment. You’re being overly defensive.
On SSI right now. My art has exploded recently because I have a lot of time. Every day, at least one complete piece. Still pretty poor, struggling financially. But oil pastels, gesso, baby oil, cotton balls, piece of plastic… because free time, I’m excitedly experimenting, create pieces deeply layered, sculptural. Was never possible when employed.
That was my tough, artist’s need raw material to work with wich is not free, having a UBI let’s artist’s buy the thing they need to create art and then mabe make some extra income.
I’m struggling with that. My red, orange, blue oil pastels are running out. But have a bunch of brown, grey hues left. So forcing me to adapt. Also, was struggling to figure out how to add layering, depth, large areas of white space. But just one tiny white oil pastel. That forced me to experiment with using gesso as a medium. Initially, just to more cheaply add more white space. But realized gesso is amazing, can be sculpted, if you sculpt patterns, or carve lines into gesso, let it dry… when you lightly run oil pastel over the dried gesso…
Poverty, limited means can be useful. Necessity breeds adaptation.
What I’m realizing more and more is that we don’t have to buy materials from stores to make art. There are tons of videos out there showing how to make natural paints, paper, pastels, etc from local resources. I think so many people just can’t be bothered.
All of which is your work.
They’re suggesting UBI in place of copyright. So all that work your doing right now could be stolen by others and sold for cheaper than you would sell it, without your permission. So companies like Disney can just take it and put it in a movie or something, without paying you.
All you would get would be your UBI, they would get the profit.
They are suggesting focussing on UBI instead of getting angry at AI art as a bandaid for capitalism taking artists jobs away, because, spoiler alert, capitalism is going to keep using advances in tech to take all of our well paying jobs away. One solution gives us all a way to live, the other stems the tide for a TINY bit for ONE category of workers
copyright doesn’t stop stealing. I creates a tort against copying.
We should just do UBI anyway. Copyright is a whole fucked up world of nonsense, we don’t need to go there.
Stop comparing businesses to people and we can probably get that sorted as well.
The creation can possibly have monetary value, thus the protection. How much is up to society.
This isn’t a good argument for UBI.
It’s a good argument because artificially constraining the supply to simulate “monetary value” destroys most of the actual value it could have by being available to everyone. The “protection” is a harmful kludge that only has to exist because we insist on making everyone measure their value with the market.
I don’t think that tracks though. If we all lived in universal basic income world I don’t think the idea of copyright would be given up. People would still want to be compensated for their work, universal basic income doesn’t get rid of capitalism, it just gets rid of the less desirable aspects of it.
We would still have money but it would change in its nature. Instead of needing it in order to survive you would simply need it in order to improve your lot above whatever base level the theoretical society decided on. You would still need copyright to enforce your right to compensation and prevent others from taking credit for your work.
Unfortunately, “society” doesn’t control most of the value of anything. The monopolists do.
So the only really valuable kind of art is the art that can be used for speculation and money laundering.
So what you’re suggesting is the artists should make a set income, determined by the legislature.
And then create lots of free art that isn’t copyrighted.
So that a corporation can come along, take their art, and use it compared with their superior distribution and marketing to make more profit off of it than the artist ever could, without paying them.
Sounds like a flawless system.
If the artist has their needs met then yes, absolutely fantastic. Works better than our current system where most artists make copywrited art for their corporate overlords abd can get laid off whenever new tech roles around that makes them obsolete, and now the corporation owns their art AND they have no house
UBI and copyright are not mutually exclusive. Why wouldn’t artists want to earn more on top for the work they do and the value they create, like every other profession?!
you can sell your work with a resorting to government enforce Monopoly.
Monopolies are not about exclusively for one specific thing, but about scale and the availability of alternatives. It’s not like you can only buy pictures or music from one artist, just that you have to buy art from the artist who made it.
none of this contradicts what I said. government enforce monopolies are wrong.
The contradiction is that you imply copyright is always a government enforced monopoly. It can be, but it usually isn’t, especially with art. So using it as a counter argument here makes no sense.
copyright is always a government enforced monopoly.
that’s the only thing it is. it’s a law that grants exclusive rights to sell. how do you think it’s not in relation to art?
Exclusive rights and monopolies are not the same thing. Monopolies are about access to a category of things or services that fulfill a need, not one specific thing. E.g. Samsung has exclusive rights to sell Samsung TVs, but they don’t have a monopoly on TVs, and talking about a monopoly on Samsung TVs specifically makes no sense. Similarly no one has a monopoly on landscape drawings, rock music or scifi movies, just exclusive rights to specific pieces of art or literature that they created.
As a side note, patents are a different story imo. Because overly broad patents can actually give you exclusive access to an entire category, and therefore a real monopoly. But you can’t patent art.
do you know how I know that you aren’t a copyright lawyer?
your Samsung example is trademark. it’s not copyright.
Not when work takes a large amount of time to produce the original, and very little work to produce a copy. An original and a copy of a digital artwork are identical.
Not when work takes a large amount of time to produce the original, and very little work to produce a copy
if you’ve never seen someone sell their own creative work without the trappings of a government enforced monopoly, you should look into how any author or artist got paid before the statute of anne.
By the rich?
patronage was common. you can’t think that every artist got paid by someone who is rich though.
wrong.
Can you explain how government enforced monopolies intersects with the discussion here?
that’s what copyright and patent are. but you don’t need to use the cudgel of the law to sell your work. in fact, most times, it’s an irrelevant factor.
Lmao as if artists would manage to produce anything if they could just slack off and hit a blunt instead of producing anything
Yep, totally correct. History is totally not full of artists creating despite their genius not being recognised socially and economically and dying poor and isolated. Clearly, the only way to stimulate artists is monetary compensation.
You can’t give UBI to a subset of people. Then it’s not universal anymore.
But if you did give artists a basic income, how much art would they need to produce to qualify? What qualifies as art? The law doesn’t do well with those kinds of questions.
Better to implement true UBI. Give it to everyone, and afford more security to folks who want to focus on art.
My town, in a surprisingly conservative part of Louisiana, has an artist residency. They pay $700/month and supply a studio to 3 artists for 9 months out of the year.
The hours are whenever the artist has the time (so as not to interfere with their jobs), and the stipulation is that they have to be available twice a month to teach evening classes about their individual style. They have to have enough pieces by the end to fill a show, as determined by the board that assigned them for the year. But there’s no hard number of art pieces required.
All this to say that it can be done. Even if right now it’s just a few artists a year in one town, the concept is there.
The solution is UBI and then tax incomes. It gives everyone the opportunity to persue goals, and if you make enough extra it is taxes to pay for everyone else to have the same opportunity. Persue art if you wish. If it’s successful you’ll get to pay it forward. You don’t have to struggle to just survive while pursuing those goals.
So if 5 percent of the workforce pursues other endeavors such as the arts or retirees sooner, and certainly people will retire sooner, where do you find the people to take out your garbage when 5 percent of them quit?
Pretty sure OP meant UBI for everyone, as in its a much better fight than the fight against AI Art
I completely agree on giving UBI to everyone, Imagine a world without artists. Without movies, TV shows, theaters, musicals, museums, books, music, sculpture, paintings, architecture.
Imagine how dull everything would be, without the creativity and imagination of these people out to use. But nowaday people just say Y0u_sH0uLd_sTuDy_SoMeThInG_t0_hAvE_iNc0mE, ignoring the consequences of the absence of arts
Sorry, I meant UBI for everyone, including artists.
Would you work harder or longer at your current job if you were paid say an unconditional 1000 per month and if not, how would productively increase to pay for it?
I will get down voted but no one will have a good answer for this.
There’s actual experiments that have been done on this and every experiment has said that people don’t quit their jobs they carry on doing their jobs and they just have a better standard of living than the otherwise would have had.
It’d be really great if you could actually look this stuff up before making comments
Ah my bad, then I agree!
Maybe the UBI is the art? I mean, we’re talking about it, aren’t we?
im an upcoming starving artist (graphic designer) we def do not need a UBI for artists specifically my peers will take any excuse to not do anything.
but a ubi for all would be fire and likely increase productivity in everyway over time.
Graphic designers are not part of this. You guys can make a fucking killing designing everything from flyers, billboards, websites and bloody corporate logos.
I know a few British graphic designers. One made a logo for the US government in 1hr. They gave him $10k for it. He lives in a £1M mansion and works from home maybe 4hrs per day.
I don’t think I’ve ever met a poor graphic designer.
Post shower toilet thought: Copyright isn’t there to protect the author, it’s there to create a multi-billion dollar legal industry.
you poop AFTER you shower???
Heresy of the highest order.
Maybe he’s going to get back in the shower. Hold your judgement until we have more information. Some people just gotta poop a lot
just get a bidet and it becomes irrelevant. you’re living in a different millennium if you don’t have one. or don’t and stay dirty.
