wouldn't making art that is deemed socially desirable labor so one is compensated making art for oneself as much as anything else? or in that senese parecon would then be paying artists as prostitutes. you know as 'i don't like doing this but this sort of thing has been deemed somehow as 'socially desirable labor''. then if that becomes obvious in the art it could then be deemed 'socially undesirable' then the artist throws his hands up in the air and shoots himself.
also whose to say bad art however it is deemed isn't 'socially desirable labor'? i mean socially undesirable labor art could produce desirable labor art or vice versa. some of the best films for example are critiques of bad films etc. how would we know what socially undesirable labor art is unless someone produces it?
shouldn't 'artists' be paid a base amount (enough to eat) with the only criteria that they produce something? and let the reaction or posterity weed out the 'undesirables'.... i can imagine getting abuse from critics etc. would make being an artist a desirable means of compensation. a bad artist that could stand being say the balloon person amount pincushion men could still be producing something of social value by means of his labor.
i'm just wondering how this sort of thing would be worked out.
~M.E.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com