The Free Penguin

Based Marxist-Leninist-Kollontajist

  • 234 Posts
  • 963 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 4th, 2022

help-circle


  • I mean “remixing” in the sense of creating your own derivative work. Computer-generated images have no labor added, so therefore have no value. The idea that the artist should receive additional stipends for derivative works made relies on the fact that under capitalism, digital artists cannot receive compensation in whole. The original artist did not put any labor into having others make derivative works.


  • “Who is preventing you from distributing digital art?”

    With a .png file, nobody. But not all digital art boils down to just saving a .png file. Try redistributing Nintendo video games (also a form of art) and avoiding a lawsuit.

    “They should not be left in the dirt if they make a successful piece of art” So… they should be treated differently if many people remix their art? You didn’t somehow magically put value into an art piece when someone remixes it. When someone remixes your art, they are the sole people adding value to the already-generated value created when you make art. The number of people being interested/uninterested in your art doesn’t randomly change how much work you put into it.


  • The Free PenguinOPtoComradeship // FreechatCollectivize art!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    No. Labor was put into the art, in the same way labor was put into the “create a bicycle” button. The bicycles are not the art themselves, they are meant to be stand-ins for the valueless copies of digital art. (This is not saying that digital art is not valuable, this is merely saying that copying digital art to another device creates no value) Regarding physical art, while it is naturally scarce, the IP of the art is not the same as the physical art piece itself. The advent of digital art is what created the contradiction between artists getting paid and derivative works being made. This post is not about collectivizing the physical pieces of art, it is about collectivizing the intellectual property created by making art.



  • “Who decides what is art and deserves a grant?”

    Answer: Members of an Artists’ Council, who are democratically elected and their positions can be revoked at any time by a majority vote. As for the idea that “this turns art back into a commodity”, this is a comparison between apples and oranges. The pricing of a commodity is not agreed upon by a group of democratically-elected people who are coerced by their position being beholden to a vote of the people to have fair pricing. Your argument implies that any production where compensation for labor occurs is commodity production.