[weard_beard]

Art without money is madness. Money without art dies on the vine in obscurity or pays its dues in criticism through time.

99% of everything commercially produced is somewhere between these and, if made by a person, part of a cannon, a body of work that grows and changes as the person does.

Just because an artist invites us into their mind does not mean we don’t owe them the respect we’d give a stranger. At least that’s how I look at it.

[the_af]

We don't owe Jim Davis any kind of respect as an artist. He must earn it.

In the scale you're describing, he leans heavily towards making money and away from the art part. It's OK to feel scorn for this. It's also OK to respect it, but that's not me.

> Art without money is madness

This isn't what my comment was about, but I cannot refrain from answering: art can exist perfectly well without money. I'd say the vast majority of art humanity produces is not related to money at all. It is definitely not madness without money.

> Money without art dies on the vine in obscurity or pays its dues in criticism through time.

Sadly, I don't think the former is true, and I don't think the latter matters enough.

[weard_beard]

Different pen strokes for different folks.

I used to binge read those meaningless colorful flip books to put myself to sleep.

Benadryl without the side effects.

Is it art? It felt like the smear of endless days I couldn’t escape and it was comforting. It didn’t challenge me, but I treasure it.

Like a child’s fairy tale that never ends and every day was just… ever after

[jjulius]

>Art without money is madness.

... wha?

... huh?

I've created so much art in my spare time, for the sheer love and joy of it. It's done for me, but I've shared it with friends and family and they've also greatly appreciated it, and sometimes participated in it with me with splendid results. Money has never entered the equation.

Am I missing something, or am I correct in my reading of that statement? If I'm correct, I don't mean to be judgemental, but that's a horribly disappointing view of art, whatever the medium, and I'm sorry that you feel that way.

[weard_beard]

Would you go and dig rocks out of a mountain and refine them into pure ore just because?

We are social animals. Art is storytelling. It has many utilities, but it is primarily education and entertainment.

A modern version of the cave painting is to distill complex and uncomfortable truths about the world for those who wish to thrive in a society built on lies.

If you want to go dig shiny rocks from the mountain at great personal risk to your mental and physical health for no benefit to society you are probably sick. If it heals you, that's its utility.

But if you find you're good at it and you want to use this skill for its intended purpose, you aught to be getting paid for it.

*Your mileage may vary. Just my take.

[jjulius]

As someone who is into producing visual and musical art for no monetary benefit, and happens to do a lot of backpacking and is very into the geology of the areas I backpack in, yes. I would absolutely find great value in something akin to trekking into remote, hard to reach areas just to see some rocks shaped by ancient glaciers.

If that all makes me "sick", then fuck yeah, proud to be mentally ill. It's truly sad that doing something for pleasure, education, love, fascination and reverence (like being fascinated about how our planet shaped itself, or learning to play the guitar because you love music and think it's fun) is viewed as "mad" or "sick" if there isn't some kind of monetary return. YMMV indeed, but money is not everything.

What's sick, in my eyes, is only being able to view things through the lens of monetary value.

[weard_beard]

Money is just a proxy for the value your skill brings to society.

I appreciate your perspective, but I hope you appreciate that mine is just aligned with a more social view of the world.

[jjulius]

Social impacts don't need to be tied to money.

Getting together with your friends and playing/creating music together, with/for yourselves, and for no financial gain is of tremendous value, for instance.

[the_af]

I'm similarly appalled by weard_beard's replies as you are.

I find lots of joy in life without money entering directly into the equation (other than "without money I wouldn't be able to live").

When I start doing something I enjoy -- a hobby, an activity, a craft -- the first thought into my mind is definitely NOT "how can I monetize this?".

[the_af]

> Money is just a proxy for the value your skill brings to society.

It can be, but it's not the only one.

> mine is just aligned with a more social view of the world

I wouldn't say this, no. It's just a money-oriented worldview, not a more social one.

[weard_beard]

What you're saying about art is true of all labor and I think its villainous to single out the arts as being more or less deserving compensation.