Was my commentary video taken down wrongly?

[tranquility]

Art has many reasons. An artist who "arts" for profit, is not going to try so much for creativity but popularity. That may be a good thing or just a modern thing. I remember a film from my youth called "Why Man Creates". ( http://vimeo.com/22113008 ) It presents more reasons than simply making a living. It can be to entertain, to teach, to convince, to change or it could just be a barbaric yalp in the hope someone notices. It can be many other things as well and the motivation is unique to each person.

The mom who puts just a little extra cinnamon in the pie is creating art. The dad who stays up at night planning the perfect practice for his son's team is creating art. The singer who stands up in church and interprets a song for the congregation is creating art. The kid who films himself running up a tree and fliping is creating art. As are the fools who film them eat ghost peppers, swallow a spoon of cinnamon, get hit in the nuts or who pretend to fall in a store with large jugs of milk in their hands smashing them to the ground and making a mess. While the last is acting criminally as well, it is art. He creates for a reason. Humans seem to like creating. It drives us and is a part of being human.

If no one got paid, there would still be songs. There would still be poetry. There would still be movies. While they would not be the same as today, they would still be there. The proof is all over the internet.

 

[CdwJava]

Yes, there would still be "art" as there always has been. But, without the incentive of potential profit, there would be fewer and we would not have all that we have today ... now, whether what we see or hear in the media is good or bad is up for debate at times, but the fact remains that without a profit motive we would likely be left with very little to choose from.

Plus, even YouTube has to make money ... someone would have to pay for the media to distribute the "art," and the equipment to produce and create it in the fist place.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Art is in the eye of the beholder--everything is "art". I can go to a museum and pay a fee to see art, or I can drive down the highway and look at graffiti for free. Some artists make millions of dollars for their art, and some deliberately make no money at all. But this chucklehead's statement was that nobody should be able to own art, and nobody should be able to profit from it.

I wonder if his post is some kind of performance art, entitled "The dumbest thing you'll read today"

 

[CdwJava]

That's the point ... that a person who produces something a s"art" should be able to be compensated should he choose ... and, provided someone will pay. I'm not keen on NEA endowments anymore than I would be on compelling artists to release what they produce free of charge and without compensation. The OP's idea that commercially produced artistic work should be free for all is an unrealistic pipe dream.

 

[tranquility]

All that may be true. But, let's put the fallacy back in the box that humans will not create without getting paid. It is a clearly invalid argument. It cannot stand as a premise. As to the "fewer", that is like counting grains of sand. Sure, there will be "less". But, if we take a handful from the beach, don't we still have enough beach?

My father, the born and bred CPA, never understood the internet. Every time I tried to get him on it the only thing he focused on was how does it all get paid for? He simply could not understand how he could go to a page and see information on taxes, on gardening or on bowling. Where does it come from? Why would someone do such a thing? Yet, they do. I do. I do here. I have on soccer coaching blogs, mailing lists, seminars and clinics. Same on taxes as well. (Although I don't do seminars there.) No pay. No fame. Yet, I do. I have my own blog where people I interact with in meatspace get to read my thoughts on those and other matters. Links and other things I find interesting too. All for free.

That's not to say that in this modern society we don't gain value from IP rights being legal. Its just I find false arguments to be annoying when they support a broken system. Yes, we can argue if modern age of profit-driven art enhances or detracts from humankind. But, I take no position there beyond thinking it is a closer call then many would admit.

 

[Zigner]

All that may be true. But, let's put the fallacy back in the box that humans will not create without getting paid.

I don't see that anyone said that in this thread.

 

[TheGeekess]

Media is all about the advertising.

 

[CdwJava]

The POINT here is that all because an artist produces something, it does NOT belong to "the people." It is the property (intellectual or real) of the person who produced it who can do with it what he or she pleases. Absent a profit motive or even reasonable compensation, much of it just wouldn't be done because of pure economics.

Note that I NEVER said that art would NOT be produced without a financial incentive. Heck, I participated in music and theater at my own expense far more than I did for pay. But, SOMEONE paid. The venue had to be paid, royalties had to be paid, instruments, sheet music, costumes, props, supplies, etc. all had to be purchased. Support personnel had to be paid, transportation arranged, equipment purchased ... and so it goes. Art - even when the artist volunteers his time and effort - costs someone money somewhere along the line.

 

[tranquility]

I don't see that anyone said that in this thread.

I am not sure from where the incentive to create will come,

As mentioned, where would the incentive be to create "art" if one had to choose between art and starvation. "Hmmm ... I can write that song today, but then my kids would starve ..."

Plus ten..

 

[Zigner]

I believe you read too much in to those. I don't believe anybody is saying that NOBODY would create art if there was not a financial incentive.

 

[tranquility]

The venue had to be paid, royalties had to be paid, instruments, sheet music, costumes, props, supplies, etc. all had to be purchased. Support personnel had to be paid, transportation arranged, equipment purchased ... and so it goes. Art - even when the artist volunteers his time and effort - costs someone money somewhere along the line.

My best friend's children always used to give a little play or comedic scene when I went to their house for dinner or to visit. They were often recorded and my buddy burned me a DVD of years of the acts. You'd see them grow and change in both stature and style through the videos. But, admittedly, there was a cost for the camera(s) and the computer to burn and the blank to hold the data. There was cost. I'd still rather watch that thing than go to a venue for anything. But, that's me.

 

[tranquility]

I believe you read too much in to those. I don't believe anybody is saying that NOBODY would create art if there was not a financial incentive.

My point is that everybody would create art even without a financial incentive. The implication of the statements made is that they would not.

 

[Zigner]

My point is that everybody would create art even without a financial incentive. The implication of the statements made is that they would not.

Your absolute statement that everybody would create art even without financial incentive is just as false as the absolute statement you are accusing others of making.

 

[justalayman]

Creating a cartoon or writing a book. And publishing it is no different than creating something like, oh, let's see...

Oh, MS DOS or Windows or Unix or the millions of we pages out there. I wonder what we would have if each of their creators were not able to claim and enforce their copyrights and get paid for their work.

 

[Silverplum]

Not everyone is a filthy American capitalist, but it would appear that everyone here is, so I shall take my leave. Good day,sirs.

*snort!*