Most people "are not good" because our political system is centered around making money, not on mastering an art form. Many societies did this in the past, but as it's "no longer economically viable," no one cares today. Today, in order to master an art form and actually make something worthwhile, you have to be entirely self-motivated.
> Many open source developers are happy working on their hobby for "free"
Really not a good comparison. Open source developers tend to have no issues finding paid work, often because they worked for free on open source. The same scenario doesn't exist for artists.
> Open source developers tend to have no issues finding paid work, often because they worked for free on open source. The same scenario doesn't exist for artists.
Acknowledging the "paid in exposure" meme, having some free work to point at when potential employers/customers ask for references is still extremely useful for an artist, just like open source contributions are for a programmer.
Imagine you're picking between two bands to play at some event (back when those used to happen). One has 3 references amd that's it, the other has 2 references but a million plays on Spotify. I know which one I'd go for...
Absolutely. That's how it works for the artists in my family.
There are more analogies with Open Source developers. For example, you can't expect that you'll become famous for writing a simple Homebridge plugin. Just like your thirteen-a-dozen blues song doesn't make it to the top of the charts. Thousands or even millions of people may use it, but you're mainly doing it to scratch your own itch. The statistics are just a feel good bonus.
I think you would need to explain why you think pre-industrial civilization preferred "mastering the art" to "making money".
Painters sold their paintings or did commissions, musicians sold their compositions or wrote them on demand, glassblowers and blacksmiths worked to sell their ware.
I think it may be that you couldn't really change your status with money. It's not like today when you did something great and your wealth changes by orders of magnitude.
So your status came from being a master. Somebody in very high regard because he is practically irreplaceable. He brings us great clothes. Nobody else around can do it so well. And no, that doesn't mean you could charge a lot for them, because the market is too small and people who are buying from you are the people you depend on for getting the goods that you need.
This is a topic that can't even begin to be summarized in a HN comment.
In the past, it was far more common to subsidize the training of artisans, or at least ensure they were economically subsistent, because the culture recognized the value of aesthetic beauty toward achieving civilizational goals.
Today, in 2021, this doesn't happen so much. Primarily for two reasons: aesthetic relativism ("Beauty is just an opinion and all opinions are equally valid") and cost ("Why design beautiful buildings when ugly ones are cheaper?") Rather than pay more money to ensure that the market for craftsmen is stable, we'd prefer to save $20 and buy some plastic junk. Ditto for other art forms.
> Many open source developers are happy working on their hobby for "free"
Really not a good comparison. Open source developers tend to have no issues finding paid work, often because they worked for free on open source. The same scenario doesn't exist for artists.