[WS:] True, artists have always been selling their work in one way or another. What matters, however, is how they are doing it. Competitive mass market is a very different mechanism of selling than a monopsonistic or monopolistic relationship, or for that matter, selling to government, no? Each one has different pluses and minuses, and the downside of the market is the prevalence of showmanship over crafttsmanship. That is a pretty standard view, even among less dogmatic market advocates (cf. Tyler Cowen, _In praise of commercial markets_)
If you care for my opinion on the subject - I am all for market socialism - in arts and elsewhere. Some things should be sold on the markets while other through public funding, and these two modes should complement each other to maximize public good without sacrificing quality or diversity.
Wojtek
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> Wojtek writes:
>
>> Art is another victim of the market, if you will.
>
> And this is different from the time, of, say, Caravaggio?
>
> Artists have always been dependent on patrons, this is nothing new.
>
> /jordan
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>