On Wednesday, September 01, 2010 12:15:24 Walter Bright wrote: > Someone once told me that "capitalism doesn't support the arts". I asked > him how the Beatles got rich. Oops!
Capitalism is going to tend to support what is generally popular or what is popular with the affluent crowd. Anything that doesn't fall in either of those categories isn't necessarily going to do well. So, the artsy stuff that appeals primarily to artsy people isn't necessarily going to do well. The Beatles managed general popularity, so capitalism supported them just fine. Music and movies are huge industries. Capitalism definitely supports them. However, if you're dealing with less well-known, less generally-liked stuff, then capitalism isnt't really going to support it. Of course, arguably, that's for the better, since if it doesn't do well that means that it's not something that the majority supports, but there is good stuff out there that never becomes particularly popular or successful. However, since art is generally in the eye of the beholder, there will always be people unhappy with how it gets handled regardless of the economic system in use. > There's a subgroup of the theater crowd around here who regard producers as > "sellouts" if their plays actually attract an audience. I hear that this sort of thing tends to happen with Indie artists as well. There are fans who like them until they get popular. I guess that there are people who _like_ it when the stuff that they like is niche. - Jonathan M Davis