Second reply.
itself propagating the very culture you claim to detest.
When did I claim to detest it? And which culture exactly? Japan, China, USA, or ?.
itself propagating the very culture you claim to detest.
People who detest things in 2015 don't even reply. They just unfriend and quit conversations. They just reach for down-vote. It isn't detest my friend, I love art - and I think art is the most powerful education system there is. But I think people would rather masturbate to an actress than have a real conversation of peer to peer nature. 500 men staring at a actress masturbating, a circle-jerk, is not peer to peer engagement beyond "team A - woman on screen, team B - audience".
Funding of art also doesn't imply obscene wealth by the corporate film studios, music recording companies, nor the film actors. To me, that topic has to be thrown into the mix! At no point in human history has film making ever been so inexpensive - yet somehow people call every thing "cheesy" that doesn't have a massive budget! To ignore that issue is to ignore the HyperReality factor.
The very topic at hand, you pose changing the monetizing system of art and entertainment vs. art. And you somehow think this is a simple and small topic. Well, I provided you loads of citations - and links to full discussions on the topic. I also referenced Banksy indirectly, but I'll mention him specifically - as I think he has a ton to say on the topic (and he is also a walking Bagism as defined by John Lennon+Yoko Ono which calls back to The Little Prince story).
None of this is easy answers. As the topic at hand is massively complex in my view. It isn't just a casual conversation to me. I didn't write a small reply that avoided the elephant in the room.
If you don't view terrorism is an education system, using images (video, film) of fear to control people - then you are going to just bail right out on the thinking I am presenting. If you don't view advertising and marketing (Edward Bernays) as using images (video and film) to educate in a factory fashion - you are just going to bail right out on the thinking I am presenting.
Guess how many people want to actually work and learn about how complicated all these things really are? The common cynical view is reactionary. If you can't start naming people who have brought up this point before (I can go all the way back to Dante) - we have to re-invent the entire vocabulary of even describing the problem and what has been attempted before.
You want to find for me how many people are speaking the equations of how terrorism and art relate to each other? That religion and art are the same thing? That religion and psychology have a relationship?
I sure don't find many people! I don't hear it on the news, I don't find it said in millions of reddit comments, I don't find it but in extremely small numbers.
how do we make people pay for things when there are so many ways to make people not pay for things but movies need people to pay for things to get money.
Make means force, and I think there is no substitute for proper education and understanding. Advertising and obscene profits do not make for equality. The very idea of "make people" seems entirely what advertising is all about, the Edward Bernays logic of changing the system by being a hidden manipulator. It is not a Free society, nor is it an Open society.
Well, does experience for this exist? I think it does, and I have a lot of personal experience in experiments with it. September 1983 Richard Stallman at MIT put forth a whole series of ideas on how to fund things in new ways. He could see where things were heading, the raise of super-wealth like Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Jobs, etc.
how everyone else is lost in this wasteland except for the few enlightened is a view that is in and out of itself propagating
Lost? no, I think they want it. When democratic nations vote for war, leaders who support war, and vote for actors who are obscenely wealthy (ticket sales) - and don't question - hey isn't $5/million a year enough for one person? Maybe release the film to the public domain after it is done paying for itself?
If your faith is being Rich and Famous - if that's your religion - then I guess how we finance films is probably going to be a very limited discussion.
if you think advertising has no role in this, and only "dumb people" listen and are influenced by advertising... then this is going to be a very limited discussion. To me, advertising is like pollution the ocean - it is impacting ALL of us - and what we see at the cinema, what we see on reddit headlines / TV news, the wars we fight. The polluted ocean is impacting me and everyone else. There are no people outside of this! Denial of it is just the easier answer than actually looking at the history and multiple perspectives on such things.
These topics are so massively complicated that there is no WAY I can sound sane, because I don't believe we even have all the words and understanding of what is going on. That's why I brought in Jean Baudrillard and Joseph Campbell. These people sure as hell write and explain things better than I do.