Hacker News Reader

Comment by s-shellfish | Hacker News Reader

I can't understand most of it, to be honest. My perspective is art can sometimes take centuries to make sense from the creator to the person that it's right for, so it doesn't make sense to expect a functioning, mechanized economy to provide for it.

That's the point of art. To tell an idea to someone who needs it. If you tax it and expect it to work like everything else does, it can't do that.

View on HN

> That's the point of art. To tell an idea to someone who needs it.

Maybe for some people, but art for me has always been about expressing myself. I've never created anything for someone else's enjoyment. If someone happens to enjoy it, okay then, but it's my feelings on the canvas, not my interpretation of what you need to see on the canvas.

I understand that sentiment. I also understand the other.

Your trouble understanding may be that my phrase in the original post "a stipend for materials" really isn't saying what I meant to say, which in fact is simply "a stipend."

But it's too late for me to edit now.

My trouble stems from your judgement of art you don't seem actively involved in creating, therefore, art you don't understand. I assume you aren't involved in creating it because you are very negative about it. That said, if you want to create it, being able to find resources to create it can continuously be a challenging problem, and this is especially difficult if that's what your survival depends on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com