Hacker News Reader

Comment by pixie_ | Hacker News Reader

I feel like ancient civilizations a lot of times turned to art once their societies leveled off. Large structures, pots, roads, figures, clothing, etc.. I believe art is unlimited resource and we could have an economy running purely on art. Isn't a large portion of the economy already running off of art? Movies, games, tv, media, events. I actually feel there even a lack of art right now in terms of food, furniture, products in general. I'd pay for objects with more thought put into them, but there isn't enough people today to dedicate their time to art. With all these menial jobs taken up, maybe even more people will turn to custom crafts and trades. Where what I'm paying for is the creativity and uniqueness of the objects I'm buying.

View on HN

I think about this a lot. John Adams said "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."

The problem isn't the supply; it's the demand. There are many, many artists out there. You want custom furniture? Go online and you'll find people who will make it. The problem is that not enough people can afford it. Not enough demand at an appropriate price point means that the artist starves.

Hell, I used to make handmade jewelry boxes from exotic woods. Once I realized what I would have to sell them for to get any realistic value on my time, thoughts of making that my fulltime job went flying out the window. Instead it was more fun just giving them to friends and family.

Ironically, I've found (this was with Blacksmithing) that the higher the price, the better it sells. The high price itself creates a sense of value, and makes the object worth more in its exclusivity. Of course, there's a ceiling, but up to that point there's a lot of wiggle room in which to part fools and their money.

> there isn't enough people today to dedicate their time to art.

The vast majority of art usually isn't profitable. There are only so many people, families, businesses and organizations that will commission portraits, sculptures, lavish architecture etc. Look at how many graphic designers there are who have to essentially do free work just to get considered for hire so they can do a campaign to sell laundry detergent.

> With all these menial jobs taken up, maybe even more people will turn to custom crafts and trades. Where what I'm paying for is the creativity and uniqueness of the objects I'm buying.

There's etsy where artists and stay at home moms try to tap in the craft and 'artisanal' product market. There are many people trying to do just that.

I doubt that's sustainable, especially given that you have people like 'starving artists', 'starving writers', and of course game programmers who throw themselves at projects working eighty hours per week.

Anything that people likes to do tended to be oversupplied.

That's so right, if you look at income numbers for SAG its scary, starving artists is right!

At the moment.

In a world with no demand for labor, there is an implication that the cost of goods would be dominated only by supply scarcity. For commodity goods, they would essentially be free.

200 years ago a real shirt would cost you ~$2000 in today's currency (land -> sheep -> farmers -> spinsters -> dyers -> weavers -> tailors). Now a decent shirt costs $40.

Eventually artsists won't starve, even with minimal income. Ideally, hopefully.

Creativity and uniqueness might not be the sole domain of people. Our digital children are learning fast, and they are pretty creative from what I have seen so far.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com