LogicalConstant

LogicalConstant t1_j5z5ss8 wrote

Copyright laws need a massive overhaul. Patents are arguably more important to society and they only last 20 years. 70 years after the death of the author is ridiculous. If you can't make a profit off of your photographs after 20 years, you have a problem that can't be addressed through copyright law. The whole purpose of protecting copyright holders and patent holders is to benefit SOCIETY by encouraging the production of new ideas and works. It doesn't benefit society when a man in 2023 can stop the world from publishing photographs taken in 1943 by his father who died in 1993. That only benefits the photographer's son, not society.

2

LogicalConstant t1_j5z2z0d wrote

It seems like you're lumping all the French people together as a big collective. Some individuals were good and hid jews while some helped murder them. Politicians, police, and citizens each played different parts. Hard to discuss it intelligently without specifying who you're talking about.

2

LogicalConstant t1_iudh1h5 wrote

I really enjoy the visual appeal of pollack paintings, but there's a voice in my head that I can't silence. It says "I could have commissioned a 6 year-old to paint this for the cost of a candy bar. The level of skill required is much, much lower than for other styles of art. It looks cool, but that's about it. Even if the artist was trying to express certain emotions and ideas, there's no way for that to be effectively communicated to the viewer in any meaningful way. It's not really a representation of anything. The things that AREN'T in the painting are more important than the things that are. That's interesting as a novelty, but it gets old incredibly fast. I'd pay $40 for this piece and really enjoy owning it, but anyone who pays millions has motivations beyond the visual appeal and appreciation for the artist's skill and expression. It's the emperor's new clothes."

Idk, maybe you could say that about most art. I'm probably just too dumb to appreciate it.

1