No Stupid Questions

Too many universities have transformed what used to be broad liberal arts programs with technical majors into narrow vocational programs. The focus now is on training to get a job and make lots of money. Interest in anything outside of that is discouraged in all kinds of ways.

I think some of this is the result of conservative attempts to eliminate critical thinking skills from the educational system. More of it is a side-effect of the more limited opportunities offered by our late-stage capitalist economy.

I have a computer science degree, but I studied anthropolgy, literature, and history as well. It pains me to see all of that devalued and ignored.

Art hadn't been properly commodified yet because the technology for mass produced art didn't exist. They still needed artisans and artists, so they had to fund the arts if they wanted to see any created. They didn't appreciate art more, per se, but they saw it as fundamentally different from other widgets.

This is no longer the case. With the advent of photography, film, digital information, and of course the internet we now see profitable "art" without any need to fund it with philanthropy. Aside from one-off public works projects they can fund by stealing public funds, they can only imagine art through the lens of profitability and have no understanding of the amount of free time and energy that has gone into creating so much of the art that exists today.

There is no Medicis in 2023. Instead you get Marvel.

Because arts don't indoctrinate the youth with messages business moguls like and control, education does.

In the 1900s, culture was considered a common good. In 2023, all culture is to be torn down to build utopia. Rich folks who want to build a legacy end up sticking their fingers into politics and science instead of art and culture. They'd rather pay for a mob to tear down a statue than to pay an artist to create one.

That being said, the Internet did usher in a new golden age of art, culture, and entertainment. It's just that it came from the bottom up rather than from the top down. There's an unlimited amount of cool stuff being created every day, but smaller scale projects funded by regular people.

Sure sounds like you're talking about just another set of C-levels and VCs. Not exactly what I would call "techies."

Maybe not the answer you are looking for but I am happy that philantrophically minded tech people rather seem to prioritize vaccinating children in Africa or conserving nature.

More specifically I also think it might have to do with the fact that most techies grew up finding movies very uninteresting. So why would they put money into an stale art form that just doesn't interest them?

This is a great discussion, with a lot of good responses.

Without being an authority on the subject, my impression is that people who become wealthy tend to want to create something that will live on after their death that they'll be remembered for. What that thing is is likely influenced by societal opinions of the time and the individual person's interests and passions.

Art has long been one of the things that lives on after someone has died, but with the industrial revolution in the 1800s, industry and automation became another avenue for people to make a lasting legacy. Combine that with the tendency for people who are successful in current technology endeavors to be less adept or interested at personal expression, it's not surprising that they would lean towards more practical legacies.

It's not 100% though. Bill Gates, for instance, donates a lot to the arts, even though his pet projects are things like eradicating malaria.

As a techie (although not a rich one), the idea of sponsoring the arts has not crossed my mind ever before reading this. After a minute of thinking, here's my thought why:

• Techies value different things.

Back in the day, those rich and powerful valued social standing. Money was merely just a (very powerful) signifier of this. Art was a proxy for both money and standing: it showed you had resource enough to spend on frivolity, and also implied you were erudite enough to appreciate it. This is still true today: walk into a traditional rich man's house, or a place designed to appeal to the wealthy (such as expensive restaurants or professional investment offices), and you will see art on the walls.

Techies, however, are different. Many of them view their wealth and power as achievements despite their social standing, not because of it. Many techies (due to their interest in tech from an early age) were close to social outcasts when they were younger, and as a result they still don't value social status.

Techies (again, due to their instrinsic interest in tech) tend to value coolness, sci-fi futurism, and impact factor more than anything else. This is why you see the headlines on the latest billionaire investing ridiculous sums of money into impractical tech projects (Elon Musk is a great example of this); they do it mostly because it's cool techwise and because they think it would make for a really cool future. (Self-driving cars all over the roads? Fully automated drone deliveries directly to your home? Space tourism? VR that is indistinguishable from reality?)

And techies don't just not value social standing, they almost dislike it (due to being social outcasts again). "Hobo chic" is a perfect example of this: Silicon Valley offices pride themselves on letting their employees wear whatever they want, disliking traditional signifiers of social standing; and when the CEO meets wealthy traditionalist old-money types wearing suits and acting formal, he will wear shorts and a T-shirt ("look at you, stuck in the social maze, having to wear suits and act politely to climb the ranks; now look at me, I am above all of that, for I have intrinsic technical value that you do not.")

Art, another traditional signifier of social status, is also not valued for the same reason, unfortunately. I don't think you can change that without a significant cultural shift to the Valley and what it stands for.

Most people don’t really respect the patron model of arts funding anymore. The more prominent view is: if you can’t make money as an artist, you’ve failed and should quit. The market is seen as the ultimate arbiter of value. Why mess with it?

I think it’s something like that.

The disconnect is that heads haven't started rolling yet, I imagine.

They feel like it's not "needed" Only in the absence of art will they understand.

I like that this question is generating resoonses.

My opinion, as a "techie" (although not even close to rich one) with a lot of aritists among friens, is that the resson is the same as to why artists don't contribute to open source software.

We don't have the knowledge to understand it, and my feeling is that most art is created for other artists. Whenever I go to some new exhibition, it is utterly borring if none of my educated artist friends are not with me to explain me why is something interesting and how. Also, why something else is utterly shit.

Artist world is not doing nearly enough to educate non artists and help us understand what is being created.

Also, looks like you don't count games, music, movies and who knows what else as art.

Something I kept hearing when I was younger is that STEM = money and getting a degree or pursuing a career in something that doesn't make money is a waste of time. This idea gave a lot of people a high and mighty attitude that if you arent working in tech you're wasting your life. "Get fit and learn to code" became the go-to life advice when I was in my 20s. People that don't understand art (not as in getting a message out of it, but understanding why people enjoy creative works) telling each other and anyone that will listen that if something isn't a money making engine theres no reason to do it

Americans especially are trained from a young age to distrust anything that can't be capitalized upon or used to generate profit. They can understand video games or TV shows, but don't have the background in arts or literature to understand where the character designs or plot devices came from. Students looking to enter university are almost universally discouraged from entering the arts because it (probably) won't make them any money as compared to a doctor or lawyer, and the social safety net and arts funding are so underpowered that it's hard to blame anyone for taking a safer path.

Even with scientific research, something much more familiar to techies, there's a distrust or disdain in the general public around research that isn't immediately applicable to profit. Why do astronomy at all when you could be doing cancer research? Why do pure maths when you could be an engineer?

Honestly I think it's just a natural result of living in a hypercapitalist society ruled by a caste of billionaires who are able to influence government policy more and more every year. They can't profit from art or culture (except to use it as a money laundering device), so why should it exist at all? Better that we all are forced to work for them in order to pay our bills and get health insurance for our families. I think a lot of us have internalized this and feel like there's no alternative. I hope there's a backlash.

A big chunk of techies are furries. And oh boy do they commission a lot of art.

I have been around some of the tech elite you're referring to, and I propose that the disconnect arises because Silicon Valley uniquely revolves around Scale (how many people you can reach) and Impact (how big a dent you can leave in the universe). It's impossible to overstate how ingrained it is in the culture, and it is very explicit when you talk to folks at Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for example: the ability to measure and prove the impact of your project is as important as the project itself.

I admit to being a member of this culture, if not wealthy.

To me, the types of art you mention - art galleries and live theater being good examples - are extremely limited in serving relatively small populations concentrated in city centers where there already is a lot of culture. The generation that created the Internet is, for better or worse, much more interested in bigger investments that can reach everyone on the planet and hopefully improve lives in some measurable and long lasting way.

I'm sure the wealthy here in California contribute to the local arts community just like anywhere else. But there is no equivalent in the arts to curing polio worldwide or giving every child access to the Internet, so I don't personally disagree with prioritizing these agendas in a coordinated way.

I don't think that's completely true. For instance, one of France richest man, François Pinault actually owns a very large collection and hosted a large exhibition in Paris at the Bourse de Commerce. It's not only him, Bernard Arnault, actually the richest man in the world also made a lot of things for art, craftmanship etc... Of course, like you said it's mainly investment and "art-washing". I don't know how much this thing is going for more modest patrons, but I guess they act on their own levels, locally.

Taxes. My understanding was that tax rates for the very wealthy used to be much higher. So the logic being if they are going to be forced to give up millions of dollars, they can donate to charity instead of paying taxes. Then they at least can still choose what the money gets spent on and their name on a building.

As someone who’s in the tech space I would say I’m very influenced by materialism. Arts don’t do much. Not that I don’t enjoy operas or paintings, but it’s not something would make feel like there is a new world as technology would.

I feel like part of it that I connect with is seeing arts funding as inherently less important to bettering the lives of people compared to advancing science and technology. I like music and art, but with finite resources I could argue that it's more useful to invest towards equalizing technologies and general advancement of society.

Art is a product, artistry is a trade. Like, y'know, hot dogs and hot dog vendors.

I like hot dogs. They're tasty. I'm glad that people take up hot dog vending for a living, so that I can buy one off them when I feel like it. They make the rent, I get lunch. Seems fair.

But as lefty and public-service minded as I am, I don't feel they're a basic need that society needs to subsidise. They're a nice-to-have optional extra that people can buy when they want, with a market niche for virtually any price point. I don't think hotdog vending is a calling or a virtue, particularly, even if you find it particularly satisfying.

Put that next to curing cancer or producing clean energy, and yeah no sorry your hotdog stand can succeed or fail on its own income, it can come dead last in the queue for charitable or state subsidy.

Because they will continue exist throughout even without investment. And for the price is not valuable to drop more money. You know what's valuable for poor people? Money and that's what STEM brings. Why the fuck would I pay tens of thousands of dollars to set someone up to get in line for unemployment or other form of financial assistance?