If there’s one thing that can be said about the Internet it is that few worse things have ever been created when you consider the plight of artists. The internet was actually created specifically to destroy the art community. Not everyone knows that. Some people think it was invented to make Al Gore feel better about himself and to make him a stronger candidate for president. You couldn’t be more stupid than to believe that, though. Every piece of evidence you can come up with points in the direction of ravaging the art community. How could they do it?
As we all know, art is about making money. In fact, I will go as far as to say that something is not art until it is worth money. What did you think? Something was art if it inspired you? Inspired you to open your wallet, maybe. Art is something that changes the way you see something? Only if it makes you think something formerly worthless is now valuable. You might think I’m being facetious, but I can assure you I’ve never been more serious about anything in my life.
The Internet is as bad for art as book burning was. Worse, maybe, because book burning eliminated the work itself where the Internet allows for the book to be copied and shared for free. As I said, nothing that’s art is for free. If you don’t believe me you should try sharing someone’s art online and see where it gets you. Sued is the most likely result. When someone takes away the artistic value of your work you can bring it right back by suing them and making your work valuable again. You’re turning it back into art.
What would happen if you were to take an artist from the past and show them the Internet? They would obviously think it the work of the devil. The worst thing they’ve ever heard of. “Yes, Picasso, this ‘Internet’ could take a picture you’ve just created and virtually instantly share it with the entire world. People wouldn’t have to visit a gallery or a museum. They wouldn’t have to visit the particular town where your piece is hanging. Your art can easily be appreciated by everyone! It’s the worst!” Can’t you just imagine how angry any of the famous painters you know would be at the idea of their work being shared that way? I bet Van Gogh wouldn’t have even painted if he’d known that one day it wouldn’t just be some pretentious rich douchebag who got to look at his work rather than anyone who desired to. The main thing that you pick up from reading any book about famous painters is that they were in it for the money.
It’s not just painters, though. How about authors? The ultimate piss-off for any author, of course, is when everyone has read their book (without paying) and is talking about it in the streets. Can you imagine how infuriating it would be to have people actively caring about characters you made up when they didn’t even pay for the right? How about musicians? How about any form of art? No, when you think about it, the Internet is really detrimental to all forms of art equally and it has to be stopped.
If we don’t do something about this soon then I get the feeling people might forget what art is really about, and then what kind of a people would we turn into? Probably into money chasing idiots who will do anything, say anything, be anything to stay popular, ready to sue at the drop of a hat. That’s Art. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to sue wordpress because they’re sharing my blogs with people. This is obviously never going to work if I don’t try to litigate it into some art.
snaughty thoughts 