I disagree about art. Art exists for art's sake. It's not a commercial product. I don't have to pay to enjoy the Mona Lisa or the Bach. I might pay to enter a museum, or attend a performance, so I agree with you about entertainment, but art is different. Art enriches the world, improves life, expands understanding, and we should all of us pay for it with taxes. And we do!

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think your point about paying for museums touches on part of the issue.

It does cost to distribute art/entertainment. I have no problem paying for that.

It's that over the years distributors have gotten greedy (ads on a paid service, like cable did? Fuck you), and are telling us "buying ain't owning" by removing things we've paid for.

Art being for everyone, well, while I agree on an abstract level, there's a whole discussion we could have about that, starting with the range of "art" that's produced, from the mass-appeal art (so more base, simpler, becuae that has the broadest appeal), to the more niche.

At one time artists were supported by a patron (and now we have things like Patreon).

Then we have the players who get into the "art" business as an opportunity - consider things like the explosion of popular music in the 50's (that sounded similar courtesy of things like Rockola) and today's Autotuned music.

It's a big bucket of questions, ideas and concerns, and while philosophical me agrees with the basic premise of the value of art, the realist recognizes that art has a tangible value too, or people wouldn't be willing to pay for it.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

It’s that over the years distributors have gotten greedy (ads on a paid service, like cable did? Fuck you), and are telling us “buying ain’t owning” by removing things we’ve paid for.

Not to mention they just eliminate shows and movies from their services without any regard to what the artist wants. I'm still mad about Final Space.