Now, some people might object, so I will address objections some may have
- "Collectivization destroys individuality!"
This completely misconstrues what collectivization of art is. Collectivization of art does not mean that all art will look the same/have the same message/etc. Collectivization of art does mean that the people as a collective have the right to use, redistribute, and derive art made by the people.
- "But isn't this stealing?"
Let me ask you something. If I had a "make a bicycle" button that magically creates a bicycle out of thin air, then would it be "stealing" for you to press the "make a bicycle" button and keep the bicycle for yourself? Stealing something involves an intent to deprive someone of something, and what are you depriving me of? Bicycles? It is utterly absurd to say that I am being deprived of bicycles when I can just press the "make a bicycle" button and have as many bicycles as I wish. But, say that I create a "make a bicycle" button and then Mike decides to tell everyone that only he can press the "make a bicycle" button. This action now deprives the people of bicycles, and is thus much closer to stealing than you pressing the "make a bicycle" button.
- "But how will you earn money?"
Do you really think the optimal way to earn money off of the art to produce is to sell it off piecemeal by creating artificial scarcity? A collectivized system of art would require a vastly different system of compensation compared to the current privatized art that exists today. The system of payment for collectivized art requires socialist planning. When an artist publishes a work of art, they will be given a government grant equivalent to the amount of labor that was put in in exchange for the art being able to be used and derived by the public. This is a much more equitable and fair system of production and distribution of art.
- "But what if someone takes credit for your art?"
Collectivization of art does not mean removing credit from the original author. Redistributing art in a collectivized system would still require the redistributor to credit the original creator. The person's art will still be protected by a trademark, not a copyright. This means that the art will always be linked to the original creator, and the original creator will still be able to take action against people who fail to credit them/intentionally take unauthorized credit.
- "But what about freedom? Should I not have the freedom to choose who can distribute my art?"
This idea, although it may seem like human nature to liberals, has only arisen when publishers, the real thieves of art, have created strict copyright laws to protect themselves, not the creators. Before the age of publishers, these ideas did not exist, as there was no material justification for these ideas to arise. Just as these ideas have arrived with privatized art, they will also leave with privatized art. This argument falls in the same category as the "communism goes against human nature" category, as they both use the justifications the current system creates for itself as "evidence" against alternative, and superior, systems.
If you have any counterpoints, please comment them below! ^^
I feel like your argument falls apart entirely as it is focused on digital art, music, and other such assets. But fails to address physical art in any meaningful way.
How will this government grant system work? How can one reasonably ascertain the labour hours put into a piece of art? Is a piece of art even worth the labour hours put into it? Does “bad” art receive the same stipend as “good” art?
Also what do you mean by “the creation of artificial scarcity”? If you create a piece of physical art, it is automatically scarce seeing as how there is only one statue, painting, set piece, etc, in the world, as that piece of art is unique. That will likewise affect the appeal or price of a price given its scarcity. How do you share this piece of art? Do you create a reproduction? Alright then, but that’s a reproduction, not an original.
Also how do you collectivize someone’s painting that they want to sell privately? How do you collectivize a portrait that someone commissioned? Do you just seize every piece of art ever created? That feels incredibly draconian and infeasible.
Lastly, the Mike example is incredibly shallow. Bicycles are in no way equivalent to the concept of art. And boiling the creation of art down to “pressing a button and presto” is extremely demeaning and insulting. Also artists are not depriving anyone by not sharing their art. If you want to create your own, then you are perfectly welcome to spend years if not decades honing skills and developing a style to create unique representation of your soul through.
How are artists preventing others from also becoming artists? No one is depriving you of the ability to make your own art. Just because they spent the time honing their craft doesn’t give you the right to demand “their bicycles”, just because “they can make more”. That’s incredibly stupid.
The creation of art isn’t some AI generated text box. You’ve simplified this down to a degree where it’s not even applicable.