Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I was just employing irony and sarcasm to demonstrate why your arguments were meaningless :) The only measurable factor for "good" art is how many people use it/buy it. For-sale software, books, movies do rather well, so I'm inclined to believe they are pretty good. There are also some open source/free materials that do rather well, but they are not nearly as common as free materials that are crappy. My point was that for-sale art by far outperforms freely available art in popularity and usage. When you get paid to make something, you can do it more often, you get better at it, and your quality of work goes up.
Someone once told me that "capitalism doesn't support the arts". I asked him how the Beatles got rich. Oops!
There's a subgroup of the theater crowd around here who regard producers as "sellouts" if their plays actually attract an audience.
