Hello Walter,
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I was just employing irony and sarcasm to demonstrate why your
arguments were meaningless :) The only measurable factor for "good"
art is how many people use it/buy it. For-sale software, books,
movies do rather well, so I'm inclined to believe they are pretty
good. There are also some open source/free materials that do rather
well, but they are not nearly as common as free materials that are
crappy. My point was that for-sale art by far outperforms freely
available art in popularity and usage. When you get paid to make
something, you can do it more often, you get better at it, and your
quality of work goes up.
Someone once told me that "capitalism doesn't support the arts". I
asked him how the Beatles got rich. Oops!
There's a subgroup of the theater crowd around here who regard
producers as "sellouts" if their plays actually attract an audience.
OTOH try and write a play that no one will watch. I'd be very surprised if
it can be done.
--
... <IXOYE><
