How did one become an artist in the age before artists could make money off of publications and copying? Well, you had two choices:
(1) Be independently wealthy. A lot of art, music, literature, etc. used to be created by only those filthy rich who didn't have to work for a living. So, if you had nothing else to do and were bored, you could afford to make art.
(2) You're not rich? Well, if you want to be an artist, musician, writer, or skilled craftsman, you have to find yourself another rich dude to fund your work. In other words, you found yourself a patron, because otherwise, how are you going to support yourself?
A system without any sort of intellectual property makes it much more difficult for anyone to spend significant time on any given creative project, since no money can be made from that lost time... let alone taking any time to learn a skilled craft.
sorry, but if you believe this is a universal principle you got it all wrong... just because for the ost part of it's quite long history, human societies have not been relying on a monetary system... and most of humanity's art production has been made by people who have never been paid for it... the rich vs. market funded art debate is mostly valid for the last 5 hundred years in western countries... but it just doesn't cover people's art in these countries and even less so people/ethnic/religious/whatever art in many countries and in the 500.000 years history of art creation by our species and our species ancestors (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/141203-mussel-shell-oldest-art/) but you sure can say non commercial art is not art... just for the sake of contemporary economic capitalistic grip on art...
Slashdot Mirror
How did one become an artist in the age before artists could make money off of publications and copying? Well, you had two choices:
(1) Be independently wealthy. A lot of art, music, literature, etc. used to be created by only those filthy rich who didn't have to work for a living. So, if you had nothing else to do and were bored, you could afford to make art.
(2) You're not rich? Well, if you want to be an artist, musician, writer, or skilled craftsman, you have to find yourself another rich dude to fund your work. In other words, you found yourself a patron, because otherwise, how are you going to support yourself?
A system without any sort of intellectual property makes it much more difficult for anyone to spend significant time on any given creative project, since no money can be made from that lost time... let alone taking any time to learn a skilled craft.
sorry, but if you believe this is a universal principle you got it all wrong... just because for the ost part of it's quite long history, human societies have not been relying on a monetary system... and most of humanity's art production has been made by people who have never been paid for it... the rich vs. market funded art debate is mostly valid for the last 5 hundred years in western countries... but it just doesn't cover people's art in these countries and even less so people/ethnic/religious/whatever art in many countries and in the 500.000 years history of art creation by our species and our species ancestors (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/141203-mussel-shell-oldest-art/) but you sure can say non commercial art is not art... just for the sake of contemporary economic capitalistic grip on art...