Per this thread, apparently some engineers really dislike artists. I wonder if this is because artists and engineers both claim expertise in the meaning making process - a painting, or an app. I make my paycheck via that meaningless tech money like most others here, but that aside, I’m under no illusions that I’m doing much beyond solving crossword puzzles for high pay and providing for my family.
Every time tech wades into high minded ideals for its products, it seems to find ways to destroy the thing it’s helping, or put another way have extreme negative externalities. Oil and cars connected relatives via ease of travel and caused what looks like one-way pollution. Facebook and Twitter connected people and then did <wave hand, all this>.
I think engineers selectively ignoring the above for a long time is a source of extreme disgruntlement later career, and maybe why the artist hate exists?
I have never heard of a piece of world changing art have the same negative externalities, or really any lasting negative externalities, as world changing tech.
It seems to that by artist or author, the blogger is referring to being paid for original self-expression. If you are willing to compromise on self-expression, that seems easy enough to earn a living wage (e.g. in advertising or gaming, or as the blogger's profession of being a technical writer).
It seems obvious to me that hardly anyone primarily cares to pay for the self-expression of any other, except perhaps for their close ones. With media, the market pays primarily for aesthetic value, communicative ability, branding value, socio-political expression, store of money, etc., rather than for the self-expression of the author.
Nobody else really expects to get paid for self-expression itself; on the other hand, most of us commission others to express ourselves, e.g. in fashion or decoration, or at the very least in our own materials and time for something that has no value to others. So it seems privileged to me to expect to be paid in a sustainable manner for primarily doing something that most people have to pay others for.
> I have never heard of a piece of world changing art have the same negative externalities, or really any lasting negative externalities, as world changing tech.
My first guess is that this is because "the art experience" is far more transient at the individual level. With the introduction of, say, WhatsApp, there was a paradigm shift in how we're able to contact people around the world and it doesn't go away. Even the most provocative piece of art is only experienced in the moment and maybe, maybe, causes you to reflect on your perspectives for a little while afterwards.
"artists" are just exploiting human tendency to navel-gaze and socially signal sophistication, producing nothing of value except perhaps the circuses to keep people from finally eating our masters alive.
Every time tech wades into high minded ideals for its products, it seems to find ways to destroy the thing it’s helping, or put another way have extreme negative externalities. Oil and cars connected relatives via ease of travel and caused what looks like one-way pollution. Facebook and Twitter connected people and then did <wave hand, all this>.
I think engineers selectively ignoring the above for a long time is a source of extreme disgruntlement later career, and maybe why the artist hate exists?
I have never heard of a piece of world changing art have the same negative externalities, or really any lasting negative externalities, as world changing tech.