Should access to art be considered a fundamental human right?
 

Well?

Srs replies only pls

Yes

Right?

I had a feeling you'd be on my side Shallowed

Took, on the other hand, hates his fellow human and has been brought low by capitalism

Art being behind a financial transaction makes it fundamentally exclusive to significant chunks of the population.

Ticketmaster is gonna send people after you

I can't imagine any reasonable artist feeling differently either. Boris doesn't care if you download their albums Took. Just support them to the extent to which you are capable. They seem cool. I bet they make music primarily for the enjoyment of it and also to make people feel good

Which is problematic yes?

I guess there's not a whole lot to discuss here huh?

This thread is a failure and I apologize

I know what we need

Somebody get in here and disagree

I would say that any good museum is constantly struggling to balance making art accessible to everyone and staying afloat in an increasingly poorly funded sector

Under Bernie, Jeff Bezos would be forced to run forever in a giant hamster wheel that generates clean energy, which is then sold to power plants in exchange for grant money for all museums

Who will think of the libraries

Not necessarily.

At least from the perspective of filmmaking, to deliver a film to the minimum level of quality audiences expect nowadays, it requires hiring a not insignificant number of professionals with exclusive dedication for an extended period of time.
Not to mention dealing with very expensive equipment and depending on the complexity of the production producing sets, props and costumes can cost a whole lot of money.

But does excluding people who were never going to be able to afford to contribute to the financial success of the film in the first place help anyone?

Fuck yeah now we're cooking with gas

To be clear I'm not suggesting that artists should not be paid for their work

From a business perspective those people are completely irrelevant. It's already a reality that more people will watch any given movie than the amount of people who will pay for it.

Mind you i'm not talking about being financially successful, but simply being financially solvent.

I mean yeah I understand that. But my intention was not to look at the issue from a business perspective

I just think that art has a unique capacity to make people better, more open-minded, and more compassionate. And it seems like everyone should have access to that. Maybe it's even better for everyone that way?

I hear you. On that front I don't think you'll find many people who'd disagree on principle.

Then again, what does it mean to be made freely available to everyone?
What about people who can't afford TVs, stereos or computers? Are we including those too?

Yeah I think you're right. Which is why this thread is already an unquestionable failure for which I'd like to apologize once more

Sorry, I'm a little too distracted by Paul McCartney to answer this question right now

Ok, I'm back

I guess I'm wondering more about a general attitude toward it than the specifics of how it might be done. I'd say it's probably best to make it as freely available as is feasible? I wonder if maybe the thinking behind libraries and museums might be extended to cover other forms of less traditionally exalted media. Places where you could see older films for free would be pretty cool right? Free concerts are also great and a delightful part of any good city I think. But yes, you're right. It's much easier said than done isn't it?

ITT we solve the problems of the world

"Access to art" is a vague enough right that I'm not sure what I would be affirming or denying.

Like, if somebody is imprisoned and still has the right to access art the same way they have the right to food and water, does it satisfy that right to put a new painting in front of their face for a bit each week?

Or like, so long as a city has public art and a public access channel, does that fulfil its inhabitants' "right to access art?"

If we inadvertently come up with a better method of distribution than streaming that's free but still generates enough money to pay people i'm taking that shit to the bank.

To be more specific: Does it seem reasonable to think of art as something a person should only be able to access fully and freely if they have the money to do so?

I suppose my question was a bit vague. I think "freely and fully' are important words. Someone else choosing which art should be made available to the public doesn't feel like full or free access

But as LaBelle hinted at, even things like museums and public access television can be exclusive

Just say yes

Go on just do it

If we go a step further and actually outlaw the commoditization of art, perhaps it might more often be produced in furtherance of non-economic objectives.

#MakeArtGreatAgain

Even in a worst case scenario, untested superhero properties might get optioned?

Pitching to the choir.

It's the feeling that counts