>Maybe the art form is taken seriously, yet over half of the comic books, authors cannot make a decent living off this profession in France today.
That's not surprising to me, many artists don't get paid a decent living wage for their work (i.e. musicians, painters, video creators, etc). It's an unfortunate reality of going solo and trying to start a sustainable business.
On the other hand, ludicrous value gets assigned to random pieces of modern art. It seems like capitalism introduces notions of "valuable enough" meaning you can sell your art for a living or "not valuable enough" meaning you cannot sell your art for a living. Any art may still have value, but the question of art value under capitalism isn't what you want it to be but what others say it is, and if existence itself has a price, the price may be high enough or not.
I'm inclined to say it's just the opposite. In capitalist societies, art tends to be much more diverse, and all sorts of artists make lots of money at it. Not as many as want to, sure, and one could argue endlessly over which artists are under- or overrated, but, regardless, no artist gets as rich as Jeff Koons (or Steven Spielberg) outside of capitalism.
Moreover, art is pretty tightly constrained in non-capitalist societies. In communist ones, it tends to be limited to traditional forms and propaganda. In mercantilist ones, it was traditional forms or, if you could find a patron, whatever would keep your patron happy.
Art isn’t a necessity and higher inequality squeezes artists and would be buyers. Growing the middle class would help art. Its shrinking has hurt art. At least that would be my hypothesis.
Mmm I would say art is a necessity but it’s economics are weird - winner-take-all, etc.
I say it is a me necessity because it is impossible (and perhaps a contradiction in terms) to imagine a human culture or society which had absolutely no art at all.
No music, no visual art, no literature, no fashion, no film or theater, no sculpture, no “craft arts” (which are really just plain art) like architecture, pottery, interior design, graphic design, product design, etc ...
Even propaganda and the fashion of military uniforms ultimately depend on art.
It’s just not possible. And somehow if it was, who would want to live in it?
There's also much more competition in entertainment; Video-Games, TV Series, Manga & Anime, Youtube, etc. The market for Bande-Dessinée has shrunk immensely.
Also the entertainment budget is usually the last budget after everything else. And a lot of things compete for the entertainment budget. Of course weee taking about the masses here not the .01% or art collectors.
Those same people are very conscious about wasting their limited funds so faces wirh the product of 10,000 artists they tend to only spend money on the ‘best’ (could be Twilight) which is usually driven by what’s popular.
Things become popular almost entirely though control over marketing and distribution. These days we have a better chance of going viral but the old gatekeepers are still picking most winners and losers.
That's not surprising to me, many artists don't get paid a decent living wage for their work (i.e. musicians, painters, video creators, etc). It's an unfortunate reality of going solo and trying to start a sustainable business.