[strogonoff]

Again, citation needed. For as long as humanity existed, creating art always implied [the promise of] sharing it for either utilitarian reasons, or for enjoying the resulting reputation and recognition (we can go all evolutionary biologist about it and say reproduction, etc.), or for financial gain (more recently). Am I missing some point in human history where this was done without ever expecting any of that?

Writing “for the drawer” is generally a thing that happens if one is not yet satisfied or not confident about the quality of own output, or if one is self-censoring, or if one is expecting someone to read it eventually (communication can happen over time and space). I don’t think this is worth in-depth look, as art that was not seen by others for all intents and purposes does not exist.

(All art is communication; if you shouted into the void and made sure no one hears it, did it really take place?)

[turtleyacht]

> missing

> void

Art as therapy, communicating with oneself. It's a specific case, though.

Writing in a journal is another example.

Interested in hearing your perspective on these.

[strogonoff]

Interesting. I think writing a journal is a case where there may be an implicit expectation of somebody reading it later (to give a bad analogy, not unlike how a suicide attempt may often carry a desire to convey a point, even though it is often lethal); if there genuinely isn’t, it may be therapy but probably not art. Art is distinct from a random thing or a pretty picture by being an act of self-expression (no self-expression without the other). Generally, there is also an implied amount of effort and rarity of talent, as well as the position of the work within societal/cultural context (again, something that involves the other).

[turtleyacht]

Thank-you. If art is communication and self-expression to be consumed by others, that may be all the motivation needed. Despite the disincentives, even.

> new data

We'll likely keep seeing it, up until the inflection point between "machines are for people" and "people are for machines." Along a spectrum, the latter being complete cybernetic mechanization of a life.