Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > General Boards > General Chat Message Board
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-04-2020, 07:03 PM   #31
Disco King
Minion of Satan
 
Disco King's Avatar
 
Location: Banned
Posts: 7,326
Default

"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?"

 
Disco King is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 07:06 PM   #32
LaBelle
Socialphobic
 
LaBelle's Avatar
 
Location: Away
Posts: 10,921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler View Post
ITT we solve the problems of the world
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.

 
LaBelle is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 07:13 PM   #33
Alice
Minion of Satan
 
Alice's Avatar
 
Location: It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts: 5,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco King View Post
"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?"
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?

 
Alice is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 07:14 PM   #34
Alice
Minion of Satan
 
Alice's Avatar
 
Location: It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts: 5,873
Default

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

 
Alice is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 07:15 PM   #35
Alice
Minion of Satan
 
Alice's Avatar
 
Location: It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts: 5,873
Default

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

 
Alice is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 07:27 PM   #36
Alice
Minion of Satan
 
Alice's Avatar
 
Location: It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts: 5,873
Default

Just say yes

 
Alice is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 07:28 PM   #37
Alice
Minion of Satan
 
Alice's Avatar
 
Location: It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts: 5,873
Default

Go on just do it

 
Alice is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 07:47 PM   #38
buzzard
Minion of Satan
 
buzzard's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,231
Default

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

 
buzzard is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 07:50 PM   #39
buzzard
Minion of Satan
 
buzzard's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,231
Default

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

Pitching to the choir.

 
buzzard is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 08:24 PM   #40
Shallowed
Braindead
 
Shallowed's Avatar
 
Posts: 17,640
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler View Post
I had a feeling you'd be on my side Shallowed
It's the feeling that counts

 
Shallowed is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 08:33 PM   #41
Alice
Minion of Satan
 
Alice's Avatar
 
Location: It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts: 5,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzard View Post
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
Now here is a shining example of the kind of radical thinking I was hoping to encounter in this thread. This is certainly an aspect of the problematic existence of art as commodity that we've not yet considered. Fucken fuck yeah

 
Alice is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 09:24 PM   #42
Disco King
Minion of Satan
 
Disco King's Avatar
 
Location: Banned
Posts: 7,326
Default

Will the government start cracking down on sellers of handcrafted metalwork earrings and necklaces on Etsy?

 
Disco King is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 09:38 PM   #43
Alice
Minion of Satan
 
Alice's Avatar
 
Location: It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts: 5,873
Default

I’d say that all depends on how we define art

 
Alice is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 09:38 PM   #44
Alice
Minion of Satan
 
Alice's Avatar
 
Location: It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts: 5,873
Default

Best to settle that in a different thread though

 
Alice is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 09:46 PM   #45
buzzard
Minion of Satan
 
buzzard's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,231
Default

You saw my snipe and raised me a floodgates argument, huh?

This is war.

 
buzzard is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 09:47 PM   #46
reprise85
BOTTLEG ILLEGAL
 
reprise85's Avatar
 
Location: I'm faced with so many changes that I just might change my face
Posts: 31,507
Default

It's definitely a human need to express ones self. But I'm not so sure you can call consuming art a fundamental human right. It's a nice thing to have, and one that makes life better. And governments should put money into making it freely available to the population when possible. But the right to consume something someone else worked for without compensation or subsidization for their time and effort seems to not be on the same plane as something like food, shelter, medical care, etc.

 
reprise85 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 09:47 PM   #47
Run To Me
Minion of Satan
 
Run To Me's Avatar
 
Location: Where the frog spoils the leaf
Posts: 5,437
Default

As usual, i blame the rich

My belief is there is enough wealth in the world that every living being could live (and love!) comfortably in a world full of fantastic art, if only we could claw the resources away from the handful of greedy fux who’ve slowly but surely appropriated it from us over the millennia

Talking MAJOR redistribution of wealth, heavy, heavy taxation of all fuckers who dare to try living large

Also, once we all stopped fighting each other 40+ hrs/wk over the illusory trickle of a pittance of wages we’re allowed (to further the illusion we’re not just slaves, all) there’d be actual time for art (and sex and food and video games and guitaristry etc) if we could ffs agree to fucken share, for once

 
Run To Me is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 09:49 PM   #48
reprise85
BOTTLEG ILLEGAL
 
reprise85's Avatar
 
Location: I'm faced with so many changes that I just might change my face
Posts: 31,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler View Post
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?
It's a complicated question. Their right to consume art freely given to the public or them is obviously reasonable. But can you force an artist to give up their art to someone who they don't want to have it? Is art 'out there' once it's out there and that's it?

 
reprise85 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2020, 09:50 PM   #49
reprise85
BOTTLEG ILLEGAL
 
reprise85's Avatar
 
Location: I'm faced with so many changes that I just might change my face
Posts: 31,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Run To Me View Post
As usual, i blame the rich

My belief is there is enough wealth in the world that every living being could live (and love!) comfortably in a world full of fantastic art, if only we could claw the resources away from the handful of greedy fux who’ve slowly but surely appropriated it from us over the millennia

Talking MAJOR redistribution of wealth, heavy, heavy taxation of all fuckers who dare to try living large

Also, once we all stopped fighting each other 40+ hrs/wk over the illusory trickle of a pittance of wages we’re allowed (to further the illusion we’re not just slaves, all) there’d be actual time for art (and sex and food and video games and guitaristry etc) if we could ffs agree to fucken share, for once
well i mean yeah

 
reprise85 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 04:01 AM   #50
vixnix
Socialphobic
 
vixnix's Avatar
 
Location: we are champions, bathed in the heat of a thousand flame wars in the grim future of the internet there is only netphoria
Posts: 12,019
Default

There’s a grey area too...

I really like the voice of this one opera singer singing my favourite Gerald Finzi tune, and that particular performance is available free to all, at YouTube. But to see him perform in person, I think it’s ok to ask for a large attendance fee.

It’s when even YouTube access is restricted that I have a problem. So it’s not that I think all people should have completely unrestricted access to art, as a fundamental human right. But I believe there should be some guaranteed access to art that artists themselves choose to make freely available

A third party like YouTube should not be able to restrict access to that content, and only allow it to be shared, for a fee

 
vixnix is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 05:14 AM   #51
LaBelle
Socialphobic
 
LaBelle's Avatar
 
Location: Away
Posts: 10,921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reprise85 View Post
It's definitely a human need to express ones self. But I'm not so sure you can call consuming art a fundamental human right. It's a nice thing to have, and one that makes life better. And governments should put money into making it freely available to the population when possible. But the right to consume something someone else worked for without compensation or subsidization for their time and effort seems to not be on the same plane as something like food, shelter, medical care, etc.
True talk, there's quite a lot of basic needs that have to be met before we should worry about making art available to all.

 
LaBelle is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 05:19 AM   #52
LaBelle
Socialphobic
 
LaBelle's Avatar
 
Location: Away
Posts: 10,921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vixnix View Post
There’s a grey area too...

I really like the voice of this one opera singer singing my favourite Gerald Finzi tune, and that particular performance is available free to all, at YouTube. But to see him perform in person, I think it’s ok to ask for a large attendance fee.

It’s when even YouTube access is restricted that I have a problem. So it’s not that I think all people should have completely unrestricted access to art, as a fundamental human right. But I believe there should be some guaranteed access to art that artists themselves choose to make freely available

A third party like YouTube should not be able to restrict access to that content, and only allow it to be shared, for a fee
Youtube is restrictive by it's very nature. It expects people to have access to computers and an internet connection.

 
LaBelle is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 05:44 AM   #53
vixnix
Socialphobic
 
vixnix's Avatar
 
Location: we are champions, bathed in the heat of a thousand flame wars in the grim future of the internet there is only netphoria
Posts: 12,019
Default

True, but in terms of access it becomes less restrictive with every passing day

 
vixnix is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 08:48 AM   #54
ovary
Demi-God
 
Posts: 292
Default

"human rights" are tricky. I certainly enjoy my privileges as an American citizen, but I often think the discourse surrounding them seems to assert them as some kind of transhistorical fact essential to the human condition, rather than as a specific social construct. I guess Jefferson gets to the heart of the matter when he claims "these truths to be self-evident," suggesting that they exist a priori. Which they don't, obviously, since the US founding documents had the need to assert them in the first place.

Thus, I think calls for social action based on appeal to "human rights" ironically runs the risk of taking our social contract for granted, rather than as something that must be constantly re-articulated and reaffirmed, and protected and fought for.

I'd argue tho that art actually IS a "transhistorical fact essential to the human condition." I don't think one can live a human life without encoutnering/participating in art. So I think your question is less about whether "art" is a human right," but moreso whether consuming certain forms of art in certain ways is a "human right."

To which I'd say no, I think we have more pressing social needs than making sure everyone can consume art in some certain way. Especially since so much art is free on the internet.

 
ovary is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 09:01 AM   #55
LaBelle
Socialphobic
 
LaBelle's Avatar
 
Location: Away
Posts: 10,921
Default

What about accessibility of content? Should artists make their art accessible to as wide a selection of people as possible as a norm?
Are pieces of art intended for very specific niche audiences intrinsically less valuable than those of mass appeal?

 
LaBelle is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 11:12 AM   #56
cork_soaker
full of longing
 
cork_soaker's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaBelle View Post
What about accessibility of content? Should artists make their art accessible to as wide a selection of people as possible as a norm?
Are pieces of art intended for very specific niche audiences intrinsically less valuable than those of mass appeal?
i wouldn’t consider accessibility the artist’s responsibility, nor are any considerations toward an audience the artist’s responsibility, unless they are part of the “problem” (in a philosophical sense) the artist is engaged in solving.

i tend to align with Kandinsky in that art should be created out of an “internal necessity.” if engagement with an audience is needed in order for the art to fulfill its purpose and satisfy that inner impulse, then the artist can decide the conditions in which others will experience it.

 
cork_soaker is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 11:40 AM   #57
topleybird
Janis Jopleybird
 
topleybird's Avatar
 
Location: Let me see the booty hop. And now make the booty stop. Now drop, and do the booty wop.
Posts: 4,533
Question

1. Should all art be available to all, or do we just need to make reasonable accommodations for people to access a decent amount of stuff in their area

2. Would it be enough for the government to ship a crying hobo clown painting to every household


 
topleybird is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 12:33 PM   #58
Alice
Minion of Satan
 
Alice's Avatar
 
Location: It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts: 5,873
Default

Ok further clarification: I don’t think I really want to force anyone to do anything. But eliminating the ability of wealthy or well-represented individuals to punish people for accessing art in unapproved manners would probably be ok yeah?

 
Alice is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 12:34 PM   #59
Alice
Minion of Satan
 
Alice's Avatar
 
Location: It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts: 5,873
Default

I’m in the permission business

 
Alice is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2020, 12:34 PM   #60
Alice
Minion of Satan
 
Alice's Avatar
 
Location: It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts: 5,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaBelle View Post
What about accessibility of content? Should artists make their art accessible to as wide a selection of people as possible as a norm?
Yes. It’s why Radiohead is better than Smashing Pumpkins. Reiterating this fact has been the goal of this thread all along so thanks for getting us there

 
Alice is offline
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Monthly dean_r_koontz appreciation / positive comments thread Warsaw General Chat Archive 10 12-06-2007 06:32 AM
SANDWICHES Sandra General Chat Archive 16 08-08-2007 10:48 PM
fine i'll just make another one Floppy Nono General Chat Archive 42 03-16-2007 01:19 AM
Who's the most pretty girl in here? Squashing Pineapples General Chat Archive 93 10-30-2002 02:51 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:30 PM.




Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2019