>>7674

>How about you go to pixiv.net or DeviantArt.com and check it yourself how communist fairytale is happening right on your screen, instead of talking nonsense?


Sure, there's lots of art that you can have for free at no cost to you, but that does not mean there is no cost involved. Many of those works are subsidized, that is, they're commissions, or professional work, that have been paid for directly by others, at some going business rate. Other works are works done for the artists' own enjoyment, that they can afford to give for free because they're working elsewhere professionally. Some are given for free, as you say, as a portfolio, intending to attract publicity, not that the artist really cares about providing free art for the good of others, but as promotion and advertising.

Well, if you have your way and nobody can sell art anymore, then all the professionally-related work goes away, since there's no point to it. Less art, not more, and what remains will most likely be amateur quality.

>If you wish to be hired by some super rich guy you will be required to provide a decent portfolio of your work for free to prove that you are best of the best.


Sure, but they're provided for free directly to potential clients. People trying to get professional artist work send things to the people doing the hiring, not just leave it lying around online hoping someone will just drift by one day and discover them and hire them. And it will be a market in favor of the rich guy, meaning that there will be less decent jobs, and less openings, and while the "best of the best" get hired, the rest have to toil away or give up. You seem to think that all these people will then decide to just make art for free for the rest of the world just because there's nothing better to do. I tend to think that will not be enough incentive, and that many artists will go do something else, or work at art as a hobby for themselves only, and the rest of the world won't even know about them. Less art, not more.