"If the movie industry went bankrupt, people would still create cultural artifacts"
But they won't have much "entertainment value" and therefore be disregarded as narcissistic ramblings or self-indulgent drivel. Or, just a hobby.
To have a "value" in a society or to have a cultural impact, one must create compelling works that appeal to a wide swath of the population to which the piece of creative expression is communicating. Perhaps that may take more than one person to accomplish. How do you get a group of people together to perform such a task without a motivational lubricant like money?
"I don't think any of our neolithic ancestors made any money on the paintings at Lasceaux."
There was no money in cave art because, well, there was no money at all. As soon as money was created, so was the minstrel, the portraitist, and the professional writer.
Thanks, those are great points! I have to admit at this point to be forming some of these thoughts as I type. (Also, I should admit replying to the GP mostly because I wanted to complain about the popularity of Avatar.)
But they won't have much "entertainment value" and therefore be disregarded as narcissistic ramblings or self-indulgent drivel. Or, just a hobby.
I disagree. History is littered with profound cultural artifacts that had plenty of "entertainment value" (weird term if you ask me) that did not have a monetary motivation. One might argue that these are in fact the best ones. You point out yourself that cave art preceeded money. Yet, it existed.
To have a "value" in a society or to have a cultural impact, one must create compelling works that appeal to a wide swath of the population to which the piece of creative expression is communicating.
True enough. But I would argue that in general the breadth of that impact is inversely proportional to it's weight. The Pixies (as the first example that comes to mind) influenced a pretty small number of mostly musicians, but that influence was profound enough to inspire bands that would later go on to have a much wider (and more commercial) impact.
I'm sure neither of us believe that money doesn't change the way art is produced. My point is that if you look at the correlation between production cost and final quality (of say, Avatar), if anything (maybe after a certain point), things get worse, not better.
It's worth remembering that Hollywood was created (as a movie making center) to escape the suffocating regulatory environment created by Edison on the East coast (specifically the Motion Picture Patents Company).
This debate isn't helped by demagogues on either side pedaling excluded middle fallacies. The future lies somewhere in the middle, not in either extreme.
But they won't have much "entertainment value" and therefore be disregarded as narcissistic ramblings or self-indulgent drivel. Or, just a hobby.
To have a "value" in a society or to have a cultural impact, one must create compelling works that appeal to a wide swath of the population to which the piece of creative expression is communicating. Perhaps that may take more than one person to accomplish. How do you get a group of people together to perform such a task without a motivational lubricant like money?
"I don't think any of our neolithic ancestors made any money on the paintings at Lasceaux."
There was no money in cave art because, well, there was no money at all. As soon as money was created, so was the minstrel, the portraitist, and the professional writer.