←back to thread

300 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.24s | source
Show context
BrenBarn ◴[] No.44410806[source]
> I heard one answer more than any other: the government should introduce universal basic income. This would indeed afford artists the security to create art, but it’s also extremely fanciful.

Until we start viewing "fanciful" ideas as realistic, our problems will persist. This article is another in the long series of observations of seemingly distinct problems which are actually facets of a larger problem, namely that overall economic inequality is way too high. It's not just that musicians, or actors, or grocery store baggers, or taxi drivers, or whatever, can't make a living, it's that the set of things you can do to make a living is narrowing more and more. Broad-based solutions like basic income, wealth taxes, breaking up large market players, etc., will do far more for us than attempting piecemeal tweaks to this or that industry.

replies(31): >>44410825 #>>44410866 #>>44410867 #>>44410916 #>>44411075 #>>44411231 #>>44411300 #>>44411331 #>>44411377 #>>44411383 #>>44411390 #>>44411522 #>>44411551 #>>44411588 #>>44411793 #>>44411818 #>>44412810 #>>44413214 #>>44413504 #>>44413995 #>>44414020 #>>44414102 #>>44414213 #>>44414713 #>>44414846 #>>44415180 #>>44415597 #>>44415836 #>>44416489 #>>44416737 #>>44422633 #
mantas ◴[] No.44410866[source]
Arts have another problem. Although I’m not even sure if it is a problem.

Lots and lots of people can create arts. In old era when people would just gather together and sing. Nobody would make a living off that. Very very few people were making a living by performing to nobility.

Modern recording industry with specialized instruments distorted this by allowing more talented people make a living. Yet it destroyed a lot of community singing by not-highly-talented people. On one hand more people could make a living, on the other hand much much less people were creating arts.

Nowadays it feels like we’re returning back to the natural flow. More people are creating arts since modern instruments are widely accessible. But fewer people can make a living.

Overall, I’d say more people creating arts is preferable outcome. And best art is created for the sake of it as a hobby.

replies(2): >>44411023 #>>44411755 #
watwut ◴[] No.44411023[source]
Afaik, it is opposite. You coulf live off being musician, because people liked music. Bars and such paid live music, weddings, funerals, middle class birthsdays too.

That stopped when we started to play from record.

replies(3): >>44411294 #>>44411376 #>>44412021 #
usrusr ◴[] No.44411376[source]
Had any of those pre-recording entertainers been even remotely close to making a living off it? Outside of apex apex courts?

I guess busking has existed in many societies, but that's hardly making a living, and certainly not middle class.

Weddings, funerals and birthdays, that's where i see community contribution, not full time professionals. Perhaps community contribution involving a little side income, but chances are, in pre-recording days, not even that. Not much other entertainment possibilities to spend your Sunday on other than being part of the band.

(it's funny how middle class is often portaied as a modern achievement, when the past is so full of examples of population that isn't the ruling elite, but economically still far above another layer of dropouts that would just move from opportunity to opportunity until an early death, at least unless they end up at some form of monastery)

replies(3): >>44411487 #>>44411775 #>>44415568 #
1. noelwelsh ◴[] No.44411487[source]
Most societies have professional musicians. Ancient Greece did, and so did Victorian England (see the music halls).