Jump to content
Scylla Rhiadra

A New LEA? How Can LL Best Support the Arts in Second Life?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

IMO it should not be up to LL to invest in art/artists. I would rather see them investing (time and money) in better performance, lower land tier and things like that affecting everyone, and not just people who create "art". 

If it's a case of either / or, certainly supporting art sims should take a backseat.

I am very much in support of artists finding their own patrons and marketing themselves, especially if they want to make a living off their art, but, if possible, a central "art gallery" is nice to have, to give new artists a chance to be seen outside the circle of their friends and connections. Speaking from a lazy member of the public point of view, I'd stop by a "national gallery of SL" equivalent now and then (and shop at a gift shop there if any!), but I seldom go hunting through search results to find new artists setting up their own sims. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Akane Nacht said:

"national gallery of SL"

i think you have pretty much nailed what a new LEA should be it were it to be reconstituted

thinking about this, a National Gallery could have three parts to it:

1) A process to introduce new artists to the SL public. (time-limited smaller spaces within the gallery)

2) Larger time-limited spaces within the gallery for established artists

3) Bring the Linden preservation process into the National Gallery programme 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I think first, the idea that the Lindens "must" support the arts is flawed because they are not a government and we are not a people.

This is correct. There is no "must" in Lindens supporting a renewed LEA or any arts. I didn't see the comments where that was assumed, but there are a lot of comments so I might have missed them.

IF LL agrees to support LEA, then I think there have been good points and ideas floated about in this thread about what a renewed LEA could be.

14 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

IMO it should not be up to LL to invest in art/artists. I would rather see them investing (time and money) in better performance, lower land tier and things like that affecting everyone, and not just people who create "art". 

This sets up a false dichotomy. LL can both support the arts and upgrades.

Personally, I think it benefits LL to support the arts in efforts like LEA. I don't know how much it costs them to give out sims, but keeping LEA in residents' hands not LL salaried hands helps lower LL costs in that regard.

From my own experience, it is nice when talking to RL people about SL, and they ask "What can you do there? How does it work? What's the point?" that I can talk about the art and music as part of the sell. It is helpful to be able to point to the LEA sims as part of that good stuff. So many people have still not heard of SL and many of those that have only know it as that place where weird people go to have virtual sex. LEA is good PR, if nothing else.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

IMO it should not be up to LL to invest in art/artists. I would rather see them investing (time and money) in better performance, lower land tier and things like that affecting everyone, and not just people who create "art". 

If someone loves to create art installations and someone else loves to create beautiful landscapes. Why would the first get to do it for cheaper or free, while the other has to pay at full, while both their works can be equally enjoyable for other residents?

Very much agree on what Prokofy Neva stated above. If an artist is relevant and appreciated enough they can find ways to support themselves. Sell their work and designs for example, add rentals, or whatever everyone else has to do to support their SL hobby. Or just accept that their recreational past time will cost them money, like it does to so many.

You bring up an important issue for me -- which is, why should we as a community financially support art?

Because the world is more than the commercial ventures we create to feed material needs. People have souls -- there are deeper needs that need to be tended to in order for life to have meaning beyond the commodities that some aspects of society attempt to reduce it to -- needs that art can fill.
And unfortunately, the paradox is that because art is not inherently commercial, it often lacks the money to sustain it. Of course I'm not referring to the overly priced art world that has been commercialized according to the latest fad, but to the meme of the starving artist, an all too true reality.

To be a really good artist one has to dedicate their life to it and spend vast amounts of time. By insisting artists fund themselves and spend time advertising themselves or working at another job to support their art we would be taking away the very thing that allows them to be a high-quality artist -- the immense amount of time needed to become good.

I"m not saying all the artists who participate in LEA are of this caliber, or that they should not attempt to support themselves at all in this unique environment that is Second Life,  but perhaps we might see a few of them turning into budding artists, a glimmer of hope, and so we should offer some support.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

This sets up a false dichotomy. LL can both support the arts and upgrades.

True from a technical, and probably financial point of view. I can not judge on the time/effort level because I have no idea how big their SL team is.

But if they can afford to give out a region to support an artist, I'm sure they can also spare me a region, pretty sure they can support that too? Oh, and maybe for you too, and everyone else? That's where it gets tricky. I don't see why in SL, where a big number of residents are creators / builders, only the ones that consider themself "artists" would receive this support. It's not like you can only make art if you own a full region? Rent a plot like most of us, depending on how much you like to spend / how important it is for you, and build you art there. Or are artists a special breed that can only vent their creativity if they have a full region, and at no cost?

28 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

To be a really good artist one has to dedicate their life to it and spend vast amounts of time. By insisting artists fund themselves and spend time advertising themselves or working at another job to support their art we would be taking away the very thing that allows them to be a high-quality artist -- the immense amount of time needed to become good.

In RL I mostly agree to this, though the abuse of so called "artists" on this subsidies system is quite real, and big too. In SL, I don't agree with this. It's not comparable with real life in this way. You can create high quality digital art in SL without having to sacrifice your life for it. I dare to say, a lot of the really good 3D / digital artists who can make amazing art in SL, are so skilled that they can make quite a good income in RL with those digital skills.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Don't lurk on my account.

Can I? Pwease?

B9C21A4D-645D-408C-B640-6C3864FE7137.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Can I? Pwease?

B9C21A4D-645D-408C-B640-6C3864FE7137.jpeg

*covers eyes* Not looking!  Not looking!

 

Oh. Alright. Just stop with the sorrowful eyes.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Zeta Vandyke said:
2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

To be a really good artist one has to dedicate their life to it and spend vast amounts of time. 

In RL I mostly agree to this, though the abuse of so called "artists" on this subsidies system is quite real, and big too. In SL, I don't agree with this. It's not comparable with real life in this way. You can create high quality digital art in SL without having to sacrifice your life for it. I dare to say, a lot of the really good 3D / digital artists who can make amazing art in SL, are so skilled that they can make quite a good income in RL with those digital skills.

Yes I've heard rumors of corruption, but how big is it really? And how big would it have to be to totally X the program? All groups become insular & favor friends disproportionately so I would expect some of that dynamic. Of course if no good whatsoever is achieved with the program it should cease existing, but I don't have evidence that it was totally corrupt in the past, or that it couldn't be revised to minimize some of these characteristics in the future. 

The reality of the art world, SL or RL, is that few artists are paid well for their work. Sure, some manage this, but just because some can does not mean all can - we shouldn't cease subsidizing anyone because a few are able to monetize their artistic skills. We don't even know that those who create art via LEA and the subsidies are the ones who could or do make money outside SL with their art.
While I agree that many artists here might not be sacrificing their life in the pursuit of art, one purpose of the LEA is (or should be) to showcase those who have the potential to become a dedicated artist (along with the benefits to society that accompanies it). 

Why couldn't the LEA subsidize you as well if you chose to apply?

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Yes I've heard rumors of corruption, but how big is it really? And how big would it have to be to totally X the program? All groups become insular & favor friends disproportionately so I would expect some of that dynamic. Of course if no good whatsoever is achieved with the program it should cease existing, but I don't have evidence that it was totally corrupt in the past, or that it couldn't be revised to minimize some of these characteristics in the future. 

The reality of the art world, SL or RL, is that few artists are paid well for their work. Sure, some manage this, but just because some can does not mean all can - we shouldn't cease subsidizing anyone because a few are able to monetize their artistic skills. We don't even know that those who create art via LEA and the subsidies are the ones who could or do make money outside SL with their art.
While I agree that many artists here might not be sacrificing their life in the pursuit of art, one purpose of the LEA is (or should be) to showcase those who have the potential to become a dedicated artist (along with the benefits to society that accompanies it). 

Why couldn't the LEA subsidize you as well if you chose to apply?

Meant the corruption of the subsidies system in rl, at least over here its pretty horrible. In SL I have absolutely no idea :)

Don't get me wrong, I love art in SL. When I had my own entertainment venue I always hosted a couple of photo / art galleries by several artists for free, because I love them and I feel they add to the quality of SL and my venue too. I just don't think its LL's job to supply or support in that, but ours. The residents and artists in SL

Their job is to provide a smooth stable environment, where us, the residents create the content. And if we love art, we have to provide that. Either the artist themselves by investing in some land to expose their work (does it have to be a full region??), or others, who own land, venues, galleries and so on to provide this platform.

I would never apply for subsidy myself. First I don't consider myself an artist, and second because it goes against my ratter strong feeling of wanting to work for what I get (earn).  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

I would never apply for subsidy myself. First I don't consider myself an artist, and second because it goes against my ratter strong feeling of wanting to work for what I get (earn). 

It's an admirable quality you mention having in yourself -- to take value in being responsible for oneself. However, a dedicated artist actually often works harder than the rest of us. Plus, often their goal is to produce something for others --  to make life more enjoyable, to educate, change society. It really is a noble calling. So I can't see a venue given to them to achieve this goal as taking anything from others, but quite the opposite. It's a lot of pressure too -- the attempt to create something worthy that adds value to others lives, and to be judged on that skill -- not at all like when we play around on our parcels for the fun of it. So I don't think it's unfair that they would get a subsidy and not others (this is all in theory, of course -- who knows what actually happens at the LEA).

* Many jobs people work at add value to the world, of course, but there are easier ways to get paid in those jobs -- this is really the crux of the problem and why we should subsidize art.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

I just don't think its LL's job to supply or support in that, but ours. The residents and artists in SL

Their job is to provide a smooth stable environment, where us, the residents create the content. And if we love art, we have to provide that. Either the artist themselves by investing in some land to expose their work (does it have to be a full region??), or others, who own land, venues, galleries and so on to provide this platform.

In my eyes, this 'excellence in art' (not to be confused with the annoying 'arteeeest' ego that sometimes pops up) is a vital component of society that should not be left to the dictates of the market, at the mercy of some kind individual or group. There are elements of society that are so important we need to insure as best we can they don't slip away...
For example, take charity in RL -- this should be funded by government and not left to the whims of the market or individual donors.  If we leave it to the private sector (at least in 'Murica') the religious kooks take over and offer help, but with major strings attached (not all are that way, but many).
And the privatization of so many services in the U.S. has been a disaster -- more people put in prison, failing schools, insurance and drug companies making health care unaffordable for many.
Not that LL is a government in the same way governments in RL are, but there are some similarities in that they run the show, have more power than the residents, and can choose to emphasize what they deem as important for the health of SL.

Often it does need to be an entire sim, because art is trying to create an immersive experience -- having background items that don't fit with the theme break the feeling of immersion (unless trees and such were part of one's project and could be used to block out the background noise).

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick note to let everyone know that I've produced a bulleted notecard outlining the main items of discussion here, as well as including a link to the thread. I've sent this to Tansee, who is running the LEA 2.0 group.

I haven't attempted to summarize the arguments, as that would be complicated, extremely lengthy, and probably somewhat coloured by my own views, but I have given some broad sense of issues where opinion is divided, or, alternately, where there seems to be some sort of a consensus here.

I'll let everyone know here if I hear anything back from Tansee about it, and will moreover report anything else I hear relating to this discussion.

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HAS CONTRIBUTED HERE!

And don't stop with the ideas and the discussion! It's been great, and this thread will continue to be available as a sort of brainstorming resource to anyone involved in this new initiative!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Seicher Rae said:

This is correct. There is no "must" in Lindens supporting a renewed LEA or any arts. I didn't see the comments where that was assumed, but there are a lot of comments so I might have missed them.

IF LL agrees to support LEA, then I think there have been good points and ideas floated about in this thread about what a renewed LEA could be.

This sets up a false dichotomy. LL can both support the arts and upgrades.

Personally, I think it benefits LL to support the arts in efforts like LEA. I don't know how much it costs them to give out sims, but keeping LEA in residents' hands not LL salaried hands helps lower LL costs in that regard.

From my own experience, it is nice when talking to RL people about SL, and they ask "What can you do there? How does it work? What's the point?" that I can talk about the art and music as part of the sell. It is helpful to be able to point to the LEA sims as part of that good stuff. So many people have still not heard of SL and many of those that have only know it as that place where weird people go to have virtual sex. LEA is good PR, if nothing else.

It's not about whether there is a literal search string in this thread about anyone saying that LL "must" support the LEA. Binary thinking is deadly. But it is about the concept underlying it. That they have some kind of obligation or should because they're wealthy...or something. If there wasn't that assumption, this thread wouldn't even exist.

I don't think those few times that the mass media wrote about art in SL, they wrote about the LEA sims. They wrote about AM Radio who works at IBM or Bryn Oh who exists apart from LEA, and so on. Of course, you may find a literal search string. But you don't need Linden to support the LEA for the press to write about good art in SL.

LEA or even LL itself are not enough to do SL's bad PR. That will only happen when there are enough residents who do things that get positive attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

In my eyes, this 'excellence in art' (not to be confused with the annoying 'arteeeest' ego that sometimes pops up) is a vital component of society that should not be left to the dictates of the market, at the mercy of some kind individual or group. There are elements of society that are so important we need to insure as best we can they don't slip away...
For example, take charity in RL -- this should be funded by government and not left to the whims of the market or individual donors.  If we leave it to the private sector (at least in 'Murica') the religious kooks take over and offer help, but with major strings attached (not all are that way, but many).
And the privatization of so many services in the U.S. has been a disaster -- more people put in prison, failing schools, insurance and drug companies making health care unaffordable for many.
Not that LL is a government in the same way governments in RL are, but there are some similarities in that they run the show, have more power than the residents, and can choose to emphasize what they deem as important for the health of SL.

Often it does need to be an entire sim, because art is trying to create an immersive experience -- having background items that don't fit with the theme break the feeling of immersion (unless trees and such were part of one's project and could be used to block out the background noise).

It's worth pointing out that the ills you list are not *caused by* charity; they merely persist *in spite* of charity. The overwhelming amount of charity in this country isn't given by "religious kooks" but by mainstream religious organizations. Catholic hospitals, to mention but one area, regardless of what you think about abortion or predator priests.

Thank God -- literally -- for the private sector both religious and secular that have established a civil society more responsible to those in need than any other society in the world. Once you see how dependent Europeans are on government and how hard it is to do charity in the private sector there, let alone in Russia or China, you might have a better perspective on "Murica".

Failing schools and prisons are terrible, but private NGOs rather that local or federal government have done an enormous amount to help people. Take only something like the Innocence Project or the Vera Institute.  Again, I think this is something you're saying out of ideological belief rather than close personal experience actually seeing the difference between city and private programs related to justice or health, as I have.

With ObamaCare now in practice, and not undone by Trump, and with the states in fact having similar health care programs for the poor long before Obama -- I know, I benefit from them -- it's hard to talk about "insurance and drug companies making health care unaffordable."  Again, whatever your own personal experience and belief systems, the overall truth is that the majority have benefited from such government-sponsored health insurance and it's hard to go on with these talking points from the radical end of the Democratic Party.

The idea that you can't sell things to support an art sim and that this "disrupts" the mood or theme or immersion is what perpetuates the poverty of the art world. It is very easy to weave such items into the experience and I have seen it done often and do it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Once you see how dependent Europeans are on government and how hard it is to do charity in the private sector there

   Eh? No. We have plenty of charity here, both secular and religious.

   "Europe" isn't a country, I'm not sure which country you were referring to but things like this can vary vastly from one nation to the next.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/31/2019 at 2:04 PM, Prokofy Neva said:

I think first, the idea that the Lindens "must" support the arts is flawed because they are not a government and we are not a people. Or at least, they are not a liberal democratic government under the rule of law, and we cannot vote or have the power of the purse through a parliament, and the free press and justice system to back it up. So the analogy is flawed. It inevitably degenerates to its actual nature, which is that a corporation with its own interests chooses the people and projects that they feel best reflect those interests and naturally gravitate to their friends, which makes it essentially unfair, strife-prone and actually not good art.

Prok is right about this much: the analogy that we all tend to fall into naturally -- of a benevolent government supporting the arts through grants, tax breaks, and so forth -- is flawed, and so actually distorts our logic when we try to formulate the optimum relationship between LL and the arts community in SL. Governments support the arts because they are, at least putatively, primarily concerned with improving the quality of life of their citizens. The arts actually do this: a vibrant arts scene makes cities much more livable, it produces quantifiable economic benefits, and it can assist in creating a better educated, more critically aware, and more cosmopolitan population.

But if governments see the well being of their citizenry, at least in theory, as their primary ends, this is not in any way true of a privately-owned, profit-motivated company such as Linden Lab. I have no doubt whatsoever that there are many Lindens, maybe even Ebbe himself, who are passionate about the success and well-being of SL as a culture, but in the final analysis, as an institution, Linden Lab's "end" goal is making a profit; a thriving culture and healthy community is merely a means to that end. In that sense, the arts are actually at two removes and not just one, from LL's end goal, which is making money.

So, arguing that LL "must" support the arts is, as Prok notes, a flawed argument and, ultimately, an unrealistic delusion. As a company, LL cares about the arts only insofar as they can produce a measurably more successful platform, which will, in turn, produce what the company really wants, which is money.

It does not, however, follow that (as Prok intimates) a corporate-sponsored art scene is going to necessarily be unfair, corrupt, or ineffective. IF Linden Lab is clever, they will work hard to nurture the arts in Second Life because, as Seicher says, "it benefits LL to support the arts in efforts like LEA." In fact, if one really believes in the efficacy of the various levers and mechanisms of capitalism, one should have no difficulty accepting that the pressures of competition and the imperative to produce profit should compel the company to explore this particular tool for producing a more profitable platform. A thriving and high profile arts scene will make SL a more attractive place to be; it will attract more talented creators and artists/artisans; it will (if exploited properly) raise SL's real life profile and marketability. It will, or at least can, benefit the economy as a whole.

Which is why I think Zeta's argument here is only half correct:

14 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

I don't see why in SL, where a big number of residents are creators / builders, only the ones that consider themself "artists" would receive this support. It's not like you can only make art if you own a full region? Rent a plot like most of us, depending on how much you like to spend / how important it is for you, and build you art there. Or are artists a special breed that can only vent their creativity if they have a full region, and at no cost?

I actually agree that artists don't merit special treatment, merely because they are artists. Artists are vital to any society -- but are they really more important than anyone else who produces things -- clothing, food, shelter, healthcare -- that have a more immediate value to our survival? I don't actually think so.

But if artists aren't a special case, the arts themselves sort of are, because the only way in which the arts can survive in a free market economy is not through direct competition with other goods that are more broadly and immediately important, but through some form of "patronage," either through the wealthy (who tend very often to keep that art to themselves, and so prevent it from benefiting society as a whole) or through governments. And SL, as I've already suggested (and as Prok has insisted) has no "real" government.

In the final analysis, it will be the wealthy patrons who keep art alive here -- either philanthropists (and SL actually has a great many of those) or Linden Lab itself. And LL would be well advised to get involved and support the arts, not because they love them, but because they will ultimately make SL a more profitable platform.

And that is why LEA, or something like it, is a good thing, and deserving of support in some way or another from the Mother Company. Not because the arts will make us all happier (although this is to some extent true), nor because artists are a deserving elite (which I think is not true), but because it will produce more profit for the most important company in SL: Linden Lab itself.

 

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And LL would be well advised to get involved and support the arts, not because they love them, but because they will ultimately make SL a more profitable platform.

I think for LL this is key. If its true, then it would be a commercially smart move for them to do, since they are a commercial business. And LL making profit is good for all of us in the end.

If I personally agree that this is actually the case is a different thing all together. I believe most popular and well known art installations  and galleries in SL (and there are many) are not depending on LEA. But truth is, I can not back that up, I have no insight in what is sponsored by them and what not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

So, arguing that LL "must" support the arts is, as Prok notes, a flawed argument and, ultimately, an unrealistic delusion. As a company, LL cares about the arts only insofar as they can produce a measurably more successful platform, which will, in turn, produce what the company really wants, which is money.

LL kinda opened the door on this with LEA to begin with, if I am understanding the arrangement correctly. I confess I am unclear exactly why LEA opened, and why it's closing, from a business angle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Prok is right about this much: the analogy that we all tend to fall into naturally -- of a benevolent government supporting the arts through grants, tax breaks, and so forth -- is flawed, and so actually distorts our logic when we try to formulate the optimum relationship between LL and the arts community in SL. Governments support the arts because they are, at least putatively, primarily concerned with improving the quality of life of their citizens. The arts actually do this: a vibrant arts scene makes cities much more livable, it produces quantifiable economic benefits, and it can assist in creating a better educated, more critically aware, and more cosmopolitan population.

But if governments see the well being of their citizenry, at least in theory, as their primary ends, this is not in any way true of a privately-owned, profit-motivated company such as Linden Lab. I have no doubt whatsoever that there are many Lindens, maybe even Ebbe himself, who are passionate about the success and well-being of SL as a culture, but in the final analysis, as an institution, Linden Lab's "end" goal is making a profit; a thriving culture and healthy community is merely a means to that end. In that sense, the arts are actually at two removes and not just one, from LL's end goal, which is making money.

So, arguing that LL "must" support the arts is, as Prok notes, a flawed argument and, ultimately, an unrealistic delusion. As a company, LL cares about the arts only insofar as they can produce a measurably more successful platform, which will, in turn, produce what the company really wants, which is money.

It does not, however, follow that (as Prok intimates) a corporate-sponsored art scene is going to necessarily be unfair, corrupt, or ineffective. IF Linden Lab is clever, they will work hard to nurture the arts in Second Life because, as Seicher says, "it benefits LL to support the arts in efforts like LEA." In fact, if one really believes in the efficacy of the various levers and mechanisms of capitalism, one should have no difficulty accepting that the pressures of competition and the imperative to produce profit should compel the company to explore this particular tool for producing a more profitable platform. A thriving and high profile arts scene will make SL a more attractive place to be; it will attract more talented creators and artists/artisans; it will (if exploited properly) raise SL's real life profile and marketability. It will, or at least can, benefit the economy as a whole.

Which is why I think Zeta's argument here is only half correct:

I actually agree that artists don't merit special treatment, merely because they are artists. Artists are vital to any society -- but are they really more important than anyone else who produces things -- clothing, food, shelter, healthcare -- that have a more immediate value to our survival? I don't actually think so.

But if artists aren't a special case, the arts themselves sort of are, because the only way in which the arts can survive in a free market economy is not through direct competition with other goods that are more broadly and immediately important, but through some form of "patronage," either through the wealthy (who tend very often to keep that art to themselves, and so prevent it from benefiting society as a whole) or through governments. And SL, as I've already suggested (and as Prok has insisted) has no "real" government.

In the final analysis, it will be the wealthy patrons who keep art alive here -- either philanthropists (and SL actually has a great many of those) or Linden Lab itself. And LL would be well advised to get involved and support the arts, not because they love them, but because they will ultimately make SL a more profitable platform.

And that is why LEA, or something like it, is a good thing, and deserving of support in some way or another from the Mother Company. Not because the arts will make us all happier (although this is to some extent true), nor because artists are a deserving elite (which I think is not true), but because it will produce more profit for the most important company in SL: Linden Lab itself.

 

 

Very well said! No, I mean VERY well.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

I believe most popular and well known art installations  and galleries in SL (and there are many) are not depending on LEA. 

This reminds me: I think whatever the New LEA ends up being one success metric should be how much it increases awareness of other galleries and arts projects in SL, generally privately owned and curated.

Various networks and blogs inform the public about these projects, with some effectiveness and might be leveraged by LEA to meet this goal. Nonetheless, despite current best efforts there remain plenty of folks* who would appreciate this privately exhibited art but just aren't plugged-in and reminded of its existence.

All this stuff is easy to find if you seek it, but that misses too many opportunities.

None of this is my area of expertise, I just point and grunt: Enhance awareness. Build on what's working. As appropriate, align with incentives of those who know how to promote.

 

______________
*Some of those folks may have never heard of Second Life. How can we get Place Pages of SL galleries in front of their eyeballs? LL Marketing has a role here, potentially more important than keeping some "broken doll" sims spinning, and there's certainly a much bigger win available here than anything aimed at pumping air into Sansar.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

This reminds me: I think whatever the New LEA ends up being one success metric should be how much it increases awareness of other galleries and arts projects in SL, generally privately owned and curated.

shopping events have this nailed - I grab a LM to the mainstore of shops I like and visit them fairly regularly to see what's new. I'd never have come across them before becos.. lazy. 

I'd do the same for artists at a group exhibition. Like I did at SL16B for exhibits that I liked, when they had additional info.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

The overwhelming amount of charity in this country isn't given by "religious kooks" but by mainstream religious organizations. Catholic hospitals, to mention but one area, regardless of what you think about abortion or predator priests.

Thank God -- literally -- for the private sector both religious and secular that have established a civil society more responsible to those in need than any other society in the world. Once you see how dependent Europeans are on government and how hard it is to do charity in the private sector there, let alone in Russia or China, you might have a better perspective on "Murica".

Unlike so many others these days, I have nothing against religion per se. In fact, I love religions that focus on love, as Christian Mysticism does (very similar in many respects to Yoga philosophy). My favorite teacher in school (who introduced me to a variety of religions via my Comparative Religion class) was a Catholic, and I was very impressed with her.
However, this is not the type of religion I was referring to. Where I live, and where half of the country lives in the U.S., there are numerous "fire and brimstone" religious groups, spewing hate, especially with their awful church signs proclaiming how evil everyone is if they don't believe what they believe, and insisting these 'others' are  going to hell. They are big on proselytizing via helping those down on their luck, and then converting them to their hateful brand of religion.
So no, I don't want them in charge of charity in society at all. Charity needs to be provided to those in need via a fair system decided by laws that all have a voice in. It's great when groups in society contribute though, and yes you're right, many do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

With ObamaCare now in practice, and not undone by Trump, and with the states in fact having similar health care programs for the poor long before Obama -- I know, I benefit from them -- it's hard to talk about "insurance and drug companies making health care unaffordable."  Again, whatever your own personal experience and belief systems, the overall truth is that the majority have benefited from such government-sponsored health insurance and it's hard to go on with these talking points from the radical end of the Democratic Party.

The idea that you can't sell things to support an art sim and that this "disrupts" the mood or theme or immersion is what perpetuates the poverty of the art world. It is very easy to weave such items into the experience and I have seen it done often and do it myself.

I also benefited from Obamacare, to the tune of medication costing $151,000 usd.  However, if I'd been too poor to afford Obamacare, or had I earned more money that year, I'd fall into one of the cracks of the uninsured/underinsured in the U.S. and would not have qualified for my medication. Co-pays and deductibles make insurance for most in the U.S. unaffordable (think 30% of $151,000 usd -- not in anyone's budget I imagine). The problem is the insurance and drug companies that rake in excess profit.

Disrupting the mood or theme - yes, it's a problem.  Like the boxes everyone puts around their parcels on the ground  you've complained about many times -- they ruin the look.  Selling items on an art sim is a different issue.

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

I believe most popular and well known art installations  and galleries in SL (and there are many) are not depending on LEA.

These are great, but many are established artists in RL and already have funds to promote their projects. I'm hoping the LEA would also include support for up and coming artists -- budding artists that show promise -- as they are really the ones that need support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The LEA (Linden Endowment For The Arts) idea most likely came from the NEA (National Endowment Of The Arts) based in the U.S.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Arts
The NEA has been under repeated attacks from conservative groups, citing the organization as anti-Christian. They especially denounce art that is sexual in nature and art which threatens the status quo. Trump has repeatedly tried to gut funding for the NEA (not sure of the present status).
They want art to be funded privately, and with their increasing control of just about everything at the state level (abortion is getting more and more difficult due to this state-level control, to cite one example) this would mean severe censorship of the arts.
The private sector can only do so much to keep art "free" and allow it to buck the status quo (as much art, by its nature, does) when the laws favor this conservative agenda.

Of course SL is not RL in all respects, but I thought it might be helpful to know the above background regarding conditions in the U.S. and what the "private sector" increasingly means here.
I'm not optimistic about the "private sector" even here in SL, however, because many believe that artists who strive to be better artists are not deserving of any special favors -- no distinction is made between those who rez a prim on their land vs someone who has studied the arts for years and desires to devote their life to such a pursuit.
Just to be clear though, lest someone labels me an elitist, I believe all people are artists when they attempt to create anything -- I tried to get those creatively decorating their Bellisseria homes to see themselves as such.  The issue is, however, should someone who is skilled (or developing skills) in the arts, showing promise, and demonstrating devotion, be given financial opportunities that are frequently denied in society? (Denied because art is frequently not part of the commercial system in place where people can more easily earn an income). 

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...