Monday, July 19, 2021

On Medium: Proof That Free Markets Don’t Reward The Best Work

What happens when the greatest, most miraculous art is overlooked? What does that say about the meritocratic prospects for capitalism? Read on to find out how capitalism is only as concerned with merit as are the average buyers and sellers.

6 comments:

  1. Capitalism is already anti-meritorious because it promotes the most selfish, gluttonous for profits, rather than promoting the best rulers who are the wisest individuals to power.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Capitalism is like the legendary King Midas, where even shit turns to gold...

    It is not the intrinsic value that matters, but what is given by the owners of the world

    Few have heard of Harold Budd

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Yt4NPliXc

    ReplyDelete
  3. Meanwhile, the liberal left, the left arm of capitalism, teaches us that art is only subjective and that merits only matter if it is black, female, or lgbt...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's true. Art faces a conflict on two fronts, one from capitalism and the other from political correctness.

      Delete
  4. He's absolutely well-known in the art community, but besides that, in popular culture, I don't know. Not a pop-star, for sure.
     
    I think upshot is, that now all these artforms (writing, drawing, sculpting, modeling, etc.) are not enough in themselves to grasp the interest of the public, as combinatory mediums such as video games, which are merging everything, as synthetic medium, creating worlds in themselves. You can play a video games, and marvel at architectural creations and fantasies (if you are not a spoiled consumer, of course, who only sees affordances and item-values, but lacking aesthetic appreciation for art and visuals as such).
     
    So, artists are becoming just industrial workers, which is completely normal, I think, right now. There is no need for an individual romantic artist anymore — he's like a dying endangered specie in an abandoned zoo. His achievement will pale in comparison to what worlds can be created by gaming industry giants, now and in future. It's hard to be engaged in the details of the drawing, when you can participate in the world, where the same drawing can be alive and interactive. Or, such a person can exist and realize himself, but in the position of game designer or art director, but those positions in power are few and rare.
     
    The only looming intuitive critique I have — that you can be sucked in by the flow of these worlds and mediums, as they imitate hunter-gatherer and social-interactive experiences, so your taste will slowly degrade, as you don't need to exercise appreciative power, but rather animalistically participate, flow and play, which are closely related. Aesthetic appreciation, it seems, is in the breaking of the flow — alienated experience, as you might say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a good point. This could be only a stage on the way to virtual reality. One question would be whether that kind of all-encompassing technology would facilitate the old purposes of art, namely self-exploration and a search for meaning. It seems that virtual reality could indeed perform those jobs, as shown often with the Star Trek Holodeck. But this technology could also be even more infantilizing than the immersion in social media.

      Delete