>There's no point in creating/producing anything as almost anything can be produced by anyone, at incredible quality, at no cost and with little skill.
Does this imply that some significant portion of art "value" is derived from scarcity (e.g. there is more value to creating/producing art when a smaller portion of the population can do so)?
From a strictly financial sense that makes sense, but it does seem morally at-odds with anything that makes art easier for humans to produce.
Is it "good" or "bad" to enable a larger population to produce more art?
Is it "good" or "bad" to enable a larger population to produce higher quality art?
Culturally, both seem like they'd be good. In our current economic model, they're probably both bad.
With an economic model that supports artists financially and removes the need to transmute "art" into "money", I don't think we'd see human culture wiped out. Without a financial incentive to create art, what's the point in creating/producing anything if not to contribute to human culture?
Does this imply that some significant portion of art "value" is derived from scarcity (e.g. there is more value to creating/producing art when a smaller portion of the population can do so)?
From a strictly financial sense that makes sense, but it does seem morally at-odds with anything that makes art easier for humans to produce.
Is it "good" or "bad" to enable a larger population to produce more art?
Is it "good" or "bad" to enable a larger population to produce higher quality art?
Culturally, both seem like they'd be good. In our current economic model, they're probably both bad.
With an economic model that supports artists financially and removes the need to transmute "art" into "money", I don't think we'd see human culture wiped out. Without a financial incentive to create art, what's the point in creating/producing anything if not to contribute to human culture?