Capitalism ruins art

>and NuWars make money
They wish

Strange all the greatest movies are conservative

Monetization model drives design. How you plan to profit from your video game/tv show/book/movie determines how it is made. This isn't a new concept. The only way to make your art piece 100% as you see it is to not have profit as the goal, which is to say have infinite time and money.

>NuWars
>Solo: 300M

Huh, not really, I'm sure the next SW will struggle to reach 1.3B that previous movie did.

t. walter benjamin

If capitalism didn't exist no one would make movies since they have no practical use outside of entertainment
>hur dur muh Disney
There are thousands of movies that come out every year that have nothing to do with Disney or supheroes or star wars you just don't go past the first page of Google

You are a fucking moron. All art has relied on patronage since the dawn of time. The great works of antiquity were built by kings and consuls, emperors and pontiffs. Into the Renaissance, the great works we recognize were all done for the courts and estates of the ultra-wealthy, like the Medicis or Viscontis. No art has ever been created solely from the tastes of the artist. Plays were written for those with money and power. Architecture was made to honor the gods or house the people of a nation. You are a complete fucktard if you believe that art can, or should, be created solely to exist. It's never been that way, nor should it be.

>socialism doesn't have intellectual properties

Attached: image.jpg (1280x690, 75K)

>wants to make art solely to the artist's tastes
>wants their art to be watched, recognized, and respected by society
>does not take society's tastes into account
>AAAAHHH WHY CAN'T I JUST MAKE ART AND HAVE IT BE CATERED ONLY TO ME AND HAVE IT RESPECTED AND REMEMBERED BY OTHER PEOPLE AHHH

>No art has ever been created solely from the tastes of the artist.
who is Franz Kafka you dumb fuck

>Capitalism ruins art
They're only making it so you'll pay for it you absolute commie retard

you're a retard. Good art is out there, just nobody is going to give it an advertising budget. You have to seek it out. Nothing ever put on television is art. Nothing produced by committee has ever been art. All consumer products back to the beginning of media are meant to entertain you. They have not and never will be considered art. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Sherlock Holmes, HP Lovecraft — it's all just shit for children and more recently man children. Real art is being made right now and you're too much of a fucking pleb to walk down the sidewalk and check out some galleries and form your own opinion.

The reason Kafka is remembered is because he wrote his work to the appeal of other readers. If it was written exclusively to his tastes, it would not have ever been written down or published, because it would be a private tale for his own enjoyment. Dostoyevsky also wrote of his experience and perspective, but wrote with common themes and elements which could be related to by other people. Both authors crafted work to be enjoyed even if they had elements of their taste, they still wrote them with common threads of structure, characterization, and using the society they lived in as a vehicle for telling a story. If you really wanted an example of an artist who created art only for themselves, someone like Darger would be a more prominent example, but the fact that he gained notoriety at all is mostly incidental and unintentional.

What OP is referring to are artists who want to make something that appeals solely to their tastes and expect to be respected and recognized for it. Guess what, you don't get to define an era or be a face of a generation by fellating yourself and creating work which only pleases one person.

people are soulless consumer drones with no taste if there was a market for good films someone would make them. sex and violence is all the unwashed masses desire.

>would not have ever been written down or published, because it would be a private tale for his own enjoyment
Literally no one ever read them and as he was about to die he told his friend to burn all of written material, which he ofcourse didn’t do. He died as an absolute nobody.

disney owns everything because they’re an extension of the US government. enjoy your state sponsored taxpayer funded propaganda.

>caring about art
have sex

>Democratic art with the XMen is equal to Noble art dealing with the Bible

yeah
be a mindless pleasure seeking warm body like everyone else
one of us
one of us

And Van Gogh sold one painting in his life, Shakespeare was ridiculed for being trite and dull, Venetian zanni theatre was low class, and Tchaikovsky was considered to be not Russian enough to embody their theater. I'm not saying commercial success means something is of superior cultural value, nor am I saying Kafka doesn't exist, but for every Kafka, there's a thousand men who write a shitty novel that has no style, and no appeal.
Imagine quoting the Bible as an example that patronage doesn't work and money is bad, and not realizing that the most common English translation is the KING JAMES VERSION.

Money talks. Bullshit walks. Welcome to being 16

>money is bad, and not realizing that the most common English translation is the KING JAMES VERSION.
No I'm not talking about the text I'm talking about the art and making the opposite point of your strawman argument. European nobles and the Church engaged in massive patronage to usher in the era of oil painting. In a truly democratic European society hardly anyone would have purchased images before the advent of the printing press.

When the fuck did I say that democracy produced the best art, you mong?

Capitalism is an economic system that uses competition among privately owned enterprises to find the most efficient means of supplying a demand. That's it. Competition = efficiency.
You're correct in that efficiency =/= quality but efficiency can be a part of quality and if the medium produces an over abundance of low quality art that's only because the market hasn't been forced to correct. Ultimately the death of art in capitalism is due to the capitalists who continue to support sub-quality material.
We only have ourselves to blame

You're obviously very sensitive and probably a young boy but the distinction between the art of Classical or Gothic Europe and the Democratic Age has to be made. You're making an argument in favour of modern media and using Medieval or Renaissance standards of measurement. America will never grow into that level of sophistication and learning.

>accuses others of strawmanning
>strawmans others himself
>throws in ad hominem for good measure

based retard

The point is that a hundred million plebs doesn't equal the judgement of a prince.

sneed

>an actually good post in Yea Forums with a pepe pic

wtf is this where are my shitposts about summer glau

Yeah, and artists usually aren't princes. Appealing to their own tastes rarely makes anything meaningful

YOU WILL CONSUME YOUR STANDARD ISSUE CORPORATE ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCT AND YOU WILL LIKE IT AND POST ABOUT IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Attached: damouse.jpg (600x338, 33K)

>CAPITALISM BAD REEEE
>good post

capitalism is the true enemy. the JQ is a distraction.

i have a stem phd and pajeet took my job

Attached: 1482471004598.jpg (720x720, 29K)

That's because american degrees are a joke compared to degrees put out by even a shithole country like india

Capitalism is just commie speak for free trade