Art and culture are nonetheless vital, essential even, to what it means to be human, yet digital abundance has diminished our sense of their worth.
“Does it follow that culture has value only if there is a limited supply to drive up demand? And what is it that makes some bits worth paying for — food for a virtual pet, a video game app, or a song on iTunes — and others — an article, a streaming video, a photograph — not?”
2 Comments
Why do I suspect someone said the same thing when they started selling oil paint in tubes? I don’t think public access to materials has any effect on what is truly art. Ubiquitous availability of materials has generally had a positive influence on art.
Even Ansel Adams had to do things like take pictures of men’s shirts for newspaper advertising to pay the bills and get money for personal work. And from what I’ve read, he didn’t sit around complaining about it, either.
Comments are closed for this article!