• Guy Dudeman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    I mean, productivity in what sense? Artists can be considered productive with just one completed piece.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Only if somebody with disposable income pays. Art has no intrinsic value UNlike a commodity for example.

      • Guy Dudeman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        On the contrary, art has intrinsic value to those who experience it. Why commission public murals, Why commission public statues and sculptures, if art has no intrinsic value?

        • Zorque@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Because it has subjective value. And often times those public pieces aren’t there to showcase art for arts sake, but as a showcase of how much the politician cares about the community. In a purely theatrical way, of course.

          And, depending on ones own interpretation, assigning intrinsic material value to art reduces it’s value as art. Making it less art and more commodity.

          • Guy Dudeman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Hmm. Maybe you’re right. But I still think art for art’s sake is worth appreciating and supporting.

            • Zorque@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              But of course. No one said otherwise.

              That doesn’t mean it has intrinsic material value, though. That being the metric inferred by the comic we’re all talking about.