This one is not about poetry, but it is still on topic.

One claim constantly made about artistically inclined people is that they lack realism. My response to that is that reality of human world is what people make of it; and such things are only unrealistic if people choose to make them so.

If something is not in demand, then those who are willing to supply it either go starving or have to do something else. The problem is not with those who are willing to form the supply, but with those who undermine the demand.. I se no reason at all why America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $50,000 a year, should have less good art than Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1,500 a year. The problem is not with realism or lack of realism. The problem is one of values. Clearly there have been times in history in which it was completely realistic to produce and distribute art. And the times and places where that was the case are the times and places to which we continue to look back now.

So now we’ve come to a completely ridiculous point: Seeing artistic interest as psychopathology. You might as well say that it’s pathological to want to make money or to worship God. Treating such things as a psychopathology takes more resources than it would take to allow such people to be artists, and it does not produce any kind of benefit.

There have been times in American history when that was not the attitude. In 1920s there was a magnificent artistic blossoming even at the same time as there was a great economic boom. Economic prosperity and artistic blossoming coexisted. They worked together with one another. And it was in this time – one that combined economic prosperity with artistic excellence – that America became the greatest country in the world.

This means the following. Not only is it completely realistic to produce – and consume – art, but doing so is fully consistent with America’s values and America’s greatness. It is not for “snobs” or “liberal elites” or “pretentious Europeans.” It is something that has been done by patriotic Americans at the time that America rose to its greatest glory. It is fully realistic, as well as completely American, to produce and to consume art. The problem is lack of demand. The solution is increasing the demand while also producing supply of good art that people want to buy.

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 11:11:26 PM UTC-4, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> This one is not about poetry, but it is still on topic.
> One claim constantly made about artistically inclined people is that they lack realism. My response to that is that reality of human world is what people make of it; and such things are only unrealistic if people choose to make them so.
>

Conscious reality is subjective. Material reality is concrete. We each create our own version of conscious reality in order to function within the bounds of material reality.

Most of our individual conscious realities correspond in a broad or general sense; differing only in the details. The artist sees beyond the general perception of conscious reality and captures what he perceives through his artistic medium of choice.

> If something is not in demand, then those who are willing to supply it either go starving or have to do something else. The problem is not with those who are willing to form the supply, but with those who undermine the demand.
>

Art is very much in demand. It has simply moved to different mediums: film, television, music, and especially the internet.

> I se no reason at all why America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $50,000 a year, should have less good art than Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1,500 a year.

The amount of art produced today is mind boggling. My Facebook and Instagram accounts have a continual feed thread showing off various forms of art.

> The problem is not with realism or lack of realism. The problem is one of values. Clearly there have been times in history in which it was completely realistic to produce and distribute art. And the times and places where that was the case are the times and places to which we continue to look back now.
>

You're just looking in the wrong places. America is glutted with art.

Returning to your supply-demand analogy, the problem isn't that the supply outweighs the demand. It's that the amount of free, high quality art that is immediately available to everyone undermines the desire to seek out and pay for art of equal quality. The culprit is the availability -- i.e., the internet.

I'm not going to seek out and purchase a music CD when I can download that same CD for free off of Youtube. I'm not going to go to an art gallery and purchase a painting for tens of thousands of dollars when I can capture a photo of that painting on the internet. I'm not going to be as inclined to buy a book when I can read a classic for free at Project Gutenberg.

America has probably produced more art this past year, than the Renaissance in its entirety.

> So now we’ve come to a completely ridiculous point: Seeing artistic interest as psychopathology. You might as well say that it’s pathological to want to make money or to worship God. Treating such things as a psychopathology takes more resources than it would take to allow such people to be artists, and it does not produce any kind of benefit.
>

You seem to live in some bizarre alternative reality. No one in America is saying that artistic interest is a form of mental illness. Some theorists have found similarities between creative and schizotypal thought processes, but that theory (in one form or another) is probably as old as art itself..

> There have been times in American history when that was not the attitude. In 1920s there was a magnificent artistic blossoming even at the same time as there was a great economic boom. Economic prosperity and artistic blossoming coexisted. They worked together with one another. And it was in this time – one that combined economic prosperity with artistic excellence – that America became the greatest country in the world.
>

In the 1920s we didn't have television or internet. Art was expressed via the existing mediums. It still is. Start surfing a single topic in Pinterest. You can spend an entire day there, surfing through hundreds of thousands of photos and still not have exhausted the subject.

> This means the following. Not only is it completely realistic to produce – and consume – art, but doing so is fully consistent with America’s values and America’s greatness.

It doesn't mean that at all, Ilya. You haven't shown any link between 1920s America and the America of today (apart from a supposed economic boom).

> It is not for “snobs” or “liberal elites” or “pretentious Europeans.” It is something that has been done by patriotic Americans at the time that America rose to its greatest glory. It is fully realistic, as well as completely American, to produce and to consume art. The problem is lack of demand. The solution is increasing the demand while also producing supply of good art that people want to buy.
> https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
>

How do you propose to increase the demand for a product that isn't a basic necessity?

Not that demand, per se, is the problem.

The art is being produced in record numbers. The demand equally high.

The only problem, from an economic perspective, is that the art is readily available for free.

The solution is already in effect: we can get recordings for free, but we pay for the experience of live concerts. We can watch a film on the internet for free, but we pay for the experience of seeing it on the big screen. And so on. Internet art gets licensed to paying sites or garners enough hits to generate advertising income.

My only complaint with art today, is that certain forms are of a lower quality than I care for: but the groundlings need their share of art as well.

On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 1:26:28 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2022 at 11:11:26 PM UTC-4, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This one is not about poetry, but it is still on topic.
> > One claim constantly made about artistically inclined people is that they lack realism. My response to that is that reality of human world is what people make of it; and such things are only unrealistic if people choose to make them so.
> >
> Conscious reality is subjective. Material reality is concrete. We each create our own version of conscious reality in order to function within the bounds of material reality.
>
> Most of our individual conscious realities correspond in a broad or general sense; differing only in the details. The artist sees beyond the general perception of conscious reality and captures what he perceives through his artistic medium of choice.
> > If something is not in demand, then those who are willing to supply it either go starving or have to do something else. The problem is not with those who are willing to form the supply, but with those who undermine the demand.
> >
> Art is very much in demand. It has simply moved to different mediums: film, television, music, and especially the internet.
> > I se no reason at all why America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $50,000 a year, should have less good art than Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1,500 a year.
> The amount of art produced today is mind boggling. My Facebook and Instagram accounts have a continual feed thread showing off various forms of art.
Does Ibish ever update his essays? His population and GDP figures are five years (at least) out of date. Maybe because he first posted this idiocy in 2017.

> > The problem is not with realism or lack of realism. The problem is one of values. Clearly there have been times in history in which it was completely realistic to produce and distribute art. And the times and places where that was the case are the times and places to which we continue to look back now.
> >
> You're just looking in the wrong places. America is glutted with art.

Look on the Christie's or Bonhams websites. Why is Ibish writing about America when he lives in Australia? We do not consider him an authority on things in the United States.
>
> Returning to your supply-demand analogy, the problem isn't that the supply outweighs the demand. It's that the amount of free, high quality art that is immediately available to everyone undermines the desire to seek out and pay for art of equal quality. The culprit is the availability -- i.e., the internet.
>
> I'm not going to seek out and purchase a music CD when I can download that same CD for free off of Youtube. I'm not going to go to an art gallery and purchase a painting for tens of thousands of dollars when I can capture a photo of that painting on the internet. I'm not going to be as inclined to buy a book when I can read a classic for free at Project Gutenberg.
>
> America has probably produced more art this past year, than the Renaissance in its entirety.
> > So now we’ve come to a completely ridiculous point: Seeing artistic interest as psychopathology. You might as well say that it’s pathological to want to make money or to worship God. Treating such things as a psychopathology takes more resources than it would take to allow such people to be artists, and it does not produce any kind of benefit.
> >
> You seem to live in some bizarre alternative reality. No one in America is saying that artistic interest is a form of mental illness. Some theorists have found similarities between creative and schizotypal thought processes, but that theory (in one form or another) is probably as old as art itself..
> > There have been times in American history when that was not the attitude. In 1920s there was a magnificent artistic blossoming even at the same time as there was a great economic boom. Economic prosperity and artistic blossoming coexisted. They worked together with one another. And it was in this time – one that combined economic prosperity with artistic excellence – that America became the greatest country in the world.
> >
> In the 1920s we didn't have television or internet. Art was expressed via the existing mediums. It still is. Start surfing a single topic in Pinterest. You can spend an entire day there, surfing through hundreds of thousands of photos and still not have exhausted the subject.
> > This means the following. Not only is it completely realistic to produce – and consume – art, but doing so is fully consistent with America’s values and America’s greatness.
> It doesn't mean that at all, Ilya. You haven't shown any link between 1920s America and the America of today (apart from a supposed economic boom).

He wasn't here then and he isn't here now. Why doesn't he research problems in Australia--at the library.

> > It is not for “snobs” or “liberal elites” or “pretentious Europeans.” It is something that has been done by patriotic Americans at the time that America rose to its greatest glory. It is fully realistic, as well as completely American, to produce and to consume art. The problem is lack of demand. The solution is increasing the demand while also producing supply of good art that people want to buy.
> > https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
> >
> How do you propose to increase the demand for a product that isn't a basic necessity?
>
> Not that demand, per se, is the problem.
>
> The art is being produced in record numbers. The demand equally high.
>
> The only problem, from an economic perspective, is that the art is readily available for free.
>
> The solution is already in effect: we can get recordings for free, but we pay for the experience of live concerts. We can watch a film on the internet for free, but we pay for the experience of seeing it on the big screen. And so on. Internet art gets licensed to paying sites or garners enough hits to generate advertising income.
>
> My only complaint with art today, is that certain forms are of a lower quality than I care for: but the groundlings need their share of art as well.