Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Louigi wrote > In short, I would say that I simply do not try to view art as part of an "economical ecosystem" at all. My argument speaks about inspiration, art, giving away something valuable into the world as part of the creative spirit - in this equation money is not present at all. I believe that pricing art and arguing who owes what idea is missing the whole point. I am afraid I cannot further explain this without turning this discussion into a philosophical book. To have an argument which isolates items such as "inspiration, art, giving away . . . as part of the creative spirit" ignores the fact that these actions ARE a part of an ecosystem, which requires some form of balance. For instance: To say this about an automobile or human body, and speak only of one of various modules in isolation ignores the larger picture of how the system functions could fail without the balance of the entire system. Remove food from the human ecosystem and death follows sometime later. Remove the heart or any other vital organ and bad things occur. I would equate gasoline or nutrition as the missing ingredient in this discussion about art. How is one to provide food and shelter if their primary activity is art? Giving it away does nothing to address the time spent, overhead incurred (equipment). So unless it's a hobby and you provide food and shelter with another vocation, the system is unbalanced and will have a very short life span. I give my stuff away because I abhor the daily toil of the music "business", especially the culturally retarded infrastructure currently available. -- Miko Biffle Biffoz@Gmail.com "Running scared from all the usual distractions!"