Hacker News Reader

A writer has to write a book I want to buy if he expects to make money of it. A cook has to make the kind of food I want to eat.

Why shouldn't an artist?

View on HN

The problem is that usually in arts the public taste may lag the true appreciation sometimes by centuries, so a greedy algorithm will end up not funding some of the great works of art that are considered worthless in their time.

You're misstating history. There are no "great works of art that are considered worthless in their time". They were considered valuable, if by no one else, by those that created them, and whoever happened to hang onto them, and pass them down through the ages. (After all, they still exist today.)

But in almost all cases, it wasn't just the artists who considered their works valuable: many other people did as well. That's generally why they were able to continue to produce art. Patrons, who did appreciate their work, even if the general public didn't, bought it, and supported the artists.

historically, artists were sponsored by wealthy individuals or institutions to create art. Some of the great European painters of the last few centuries were sponsored by the Catholic Church. If Kickstarter can provide that, what's the problem?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com