Can the uber rich produce great art?
>>130529698rich people insisting on making the "art" themselves instead of paying someone who has actually learned the skill for it is what has eroded all forms of it. Taylor Swift isn't a prime example of that though
why do post modern commies suddenly believe in "good" vs "bad" art when it comes to dismissing art made by rightoids or rich folx (or AI, now that i think of it)
>>130529698No, viruoso slop in the best case
>>130529735because they're hypocrites. this isn't news.
>>130529735The Right is incapable of creating Art. This is not debatable. History bears it out.
>>130529756Right/Left art is just a meme, you're both postmodern larpers, one larp for tradition, another one for progress, both terms are simulacrum
>>130529735I don't care about labels but billionaires have nothing of interest to write about, and I don't see any of them pushing forward the technology or form of music in interesting ways. As for AI music, I'm not opposed to it on principle, if you showed me an album as good as Wish You Were Here and credibly prove it was made by AI I wouldn't try to cope or change my tune, but nothing has impressed me so far.
>>130529698There are no inherent obstacles for it, but such examples are extremely rare throughout history
why is Taylor so rich? How rich is Paul? How about Michael Jackson?
>>130529698Hypothetically, yes. But if your goal is just to maximize profits a la Taylor Shit, you're invariably going to make utter trash.
>>130529698Yes, but Taylor Swift can't.
>>130529756You should go back to R.eddit.
>>130529805>How rich is Paul?Literally the first thing I googled when I read that headline. It's 1.2B. TSwift's is almost two times larger. I'm not gonna pretend I know how any of this stuff works but that's just baffling to me.
>>130529698I don't think wealth has anything to do with your ability to produce great art, considering Taylor's music was utter dogshit before she got rich too.
>>130529756Idk I think Salvador Dali, Igor Stravinsky, Ezra Pound, Yukio Mishima etc. would beg to differ. But bar the rare egotistical genius who is drawn to the more eccentric kind of right wing politics, the vast majority of chuds are small minded morons who inherently distrust the creative impulse.
>>130529837inflation my dide
>>130529805>>130529837it was literally just the eras tour she didn't even have 1 billion before that >>130529860the more right wing Yukio Mishima became, the more he hated and regretted his artistic side altogetherso not exactly a good argument
>>130529698Yes. This idea that only working class people can produce art is nonsense, most working class people are unbelievably retarded.
>>130529837She American and he's a Britpoor. It's not that hard to understand
>>130529756>>130530281Johan Sebastian Bach was right wing.>>130529769Also correct.
>>130529698why would they want to?apparently mediocre art gets you 2 billion dollars
>>130529837You know that line in Taxman "It's one for you nineteen for me"? That was literally the British top tax rate when the Beatles were at their peak. 95%. They all paid out the ass to the British government at the time which is why the Beatles, while still fabulously wealthy, never had the wealth you might assume they could have had.
>>130532479Was he right wing for the time period?
>>130529698In theory, yes but privilege doesn’t help people make art of lasting value. Good art helps people endure suffering and if you don’t suffer enough to relate to people, it’s not easy or likely to manifest as substantial art.
>>130532985incels think everyone from the past is right wing because they were all racist. they're too mentally deficient to use historical context
>>130529698*marries homosexual football player*It's just not fair, dammit!
>>130529698maybe not, but an artist can hook up with a monied patron or matron and gain great wealth in exchange for their souls.
>>130532604Crazy
>>130533244Lesbianism can't realize the purpose of those hips, TayTay!
>>130529698Yes. Wealth does not prevent someone from producing great art.History offers many examples of artists, writers, composers, and patrons who came from privileged backgrounds and created work that is widely regarded as important or enduring. For example, Leo Tolstoy was born into a wealthy aristocratic family, and Marcel Proust grew up in considerable comfort. Both produced works that are considered masterpieces.That said, the question often comes up because many people associate great art with struggle, marginalization, or hardship. There are a few reasons for that:Hardship can provide powerful subject matter and emotional urgency.Artists without financial security may be more motivated to pursue art as a vocation rather than as a hobby.Audiences sometimes perceive art from privileged creators as less authentic, whether fairly or not.But there are also advantages to wealth:Time to develop skills over many years.Access to education, mentors, and cultural experiences.Freedom to take creative risks without worrying about earning a living.The stronger argument is not that wealth determines artistic quality, but that it shapes the kinds of experiences an artist draws from. A billionaire and a factory worker may create very different art because they inhabit different worlds, not because one is inherently more or less capable of artistic excellence.A separate question is whether today's "ultra-rich" are producing much acclaimed art. The answer is more mixed. Contemporary wealth is often concentrated among business founders, investors, and executives rather than people who spend decades mastering artistic crafts.
>>130532479"left wing" and "right wing" as concepts didn't exist prior to the French revolution. Try again.
>>130529698There's nothing more cringe than someone who's never had a problem in their fucking life trying convince you they're sad for a valid reason.
I leave more art in my toilet every morning than Taylor has produced in her entire career
>>130530225No it's the price of RAM shooting up
>>130535862They didn't but you can gauge how someone would have leaned, based on their attitude to monarchism or whether they had sympathies for the plebs.
>>130537438Leaned towards what? Are you talking about economies and distribution of wealth? Attitudes towards culture? Views on social attitudes and values? Views on utilisation of natural resources and balance with environmental stability? Do you think there's two categories that encompass one of two options in regards to all issues, each one ideologically opposed to the other and internally consistent?Genuinely humanity would be much better off with the kind of subhumans brainwashed into the american styled binary political view of the world eviscerated and hung up from lampposts. You are a plague upon this species.
>>130537855The first version of left/right appeared in the post-revolutionary French assembly.The left was rooting for the people/plebs/nation and the right claimed it was supporting the 'moral order' by clinging to the established social order, so they were in favour of keeping as much as possible of the old regime.So Bach could have been associated with the right if he expressed sympathy for royals or the traditional social order. And conversely associated with the left if he had sympathies for the lower classes, plebs, peasants.
>>130532604That plus the shitty deals made by Brian Epstein and then Allen Klein
>>130529698sure, why not?
Taylor Swift is no artist, she creates functional sound products for non thinkers. It's not bad or low skill but I doubt she loves music.
>>130529698>Can the uber rich produce great art?yes. >>130529756>The Right is incapable of creating Art. This is not debatable. History bears it out.not incapable, perhaps has a harder time with it.>>130529860>Idk I think Salvador Dali, Igor Stravinsky, Ezra Pound, Yukio Mishima etc. would beg to differ. But bar the rare egotistical genius who is drawn to the more eccentric kind of right wing politics, the vast majority of chuds are small minded morons who inherently distrust the creative impulse.This art style was tied to fascism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurismit's not slop either, its genuinely good art. Though mussolini later minimized it or something.in general its true that the right has more struggles with making art.
You can't convince me that's not a tranny.
>>130542247The right (in this context) is inherently opposed to the idea of art for art's sake. That's the difference. You are correct that Italian Fascism was not as bad as Nazi Germany in this regard. For Nazi Germany, the literal only purpose of art was propaganda. Nazi Germany would never produce a Vincent Van Gogh or an Edgar Allan Poe or whoever else. All of the regime's "great art" that gets cited by Nazis is direct state propaganda (Arno Breker's statues and Leni Riefenstahl's films). And Arno Breker's work is just redoing Greco-Roman art anyway.
>>130542332Resident expert (googler) spitting facts (opinions)
>>130542373I love it when people say dumb shit like this instead of making arguments
>>1305423981. You are an expert on anything a person could quickly google and then present as their own knowledge. Obviously I don't wish to contend with that. It's far too powerful rhetorically.2. Arguing over matters of opinion is something only friends should do, and I don't even know you.
>>130542905You know me. You've known me your whole life and you just didn't know it.
>>130532604That’s not how the 95% tax worked you fucking idiot
>>130542920“What’s the most you’ve ever lost on a debate on the internet?”
No matter how much stupidity permeates this site, you will never have a conversation on Reddit or any other left leaning social media website about Right/Left political dynamics about creating art, or validating the fascist art of Italian futurists.
>>130542982you sound pretty confident. however i've read that's virtually exactly how it worked. they were each making like a million pounds a year and the 95% marginal rate was triggered for everything over the grand total of... £15,000. so is your big argument that they actually paid 94%? lmao
