[hellothere1337]

Seems to me there's a confusion of ideas here. If you want to create "true" art no one is stopping you. If you're upset people can make more money by "undermining" the creative process by using tools then you're not really interested in creating "true" art with the "creative process", you're interested in money.

[vouaobrasil]

The problem is, society is set up now so that the ONLY thing people CAN do is go after money. It was pushed hard in that direction by tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook because they wanted to maximize pure short-term profit by sucking life out of people.

There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it. Now, AI has set up the ultimate PRISONER'S DILEMMA (game theory) situation where everyone needs to jump on the frenetic race ot the bottom to get their work recognized.

[eightysixfour]

> There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it.

Source? The “starving artist” trope has existed a lot longer than the tech conglomerates.

[poopbutt7]

> There was a time in history where you COULD create real art and make a decent living out of it.

Honest question, is that actually true? Historically, professional art always struck me as the domain of the rich, the starving artist, or the person taking commissions for the rich.

[bemusedthrow75]

Are you saying people who make "true art" should not be doing it for reward, or should not be as interested in money as non-artists? This is enormously reductive and is quite a modern idea. Most artists in history have made art for gain.

It is a bold strategy to suggest that Nick Cave is confused by ideas of income and art. I don't care who you are: on this topic, Cave is almost 100% certainly better informed than you (or me).

[vidarh]

Most artists make next to nothing on their art. A vanishingly small portion can live off it, and fewer uetearn well.

The number is probably higher for the elite, most renowned artists, and it might well benefit society to ensure a portion of the best can live of it, but in many places that is already hard enough that a substantial portion of the ability of even elite artists to live off their art often comes down to government funding and grants, followed by patronage that is more about status than ability to commercially exploit a work.

That's not to agree with the notion that real artists can't want money too, because I don't agree with that, but I also don't agree that most artists have made art for gain.

At least not as a primary motivator, as if gain was the main goal, it's usually a bad one (e.g. the average full time UK novelist earns below minimum wage from their writing)

[hellothere1337]

Maybe Nick Cave should stop using computers too since they simplify the "true creation process". Or just disregard tools altogether and return to his destiny as denoted by nominative determinism.

[LastTrain]

All kinds of markets have been upturned by technology, what makes music more special?

[chrisweekly]

Random tangent - your comment reminded me about one of my all-time favorite domain names (the site's decent too, but I'm focused on the name).

https://we-make-money-not-art.com/