<div class="text-justify">

I don't know if it is lag from being ill last week or what, but I am struggling with my concentration at the moment. Struggling more than usual, that is. My focus is definitely not what it used to be, and I am wondering at what point does it impact so much, that I am unable to do anything productive at all. I guess at some point, I am just useless - *valueless.* 

![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23wgFQNwuXSx8BWvf9HYFqcZCBJiDKboVpP94oAMJNU81JoA7Bd3YC5XoA9n51h6Qw9PS.png)

At lunch with colleagues, we were discussing the value of paintings and how otherwise similar artworks, can have very different values that people are willing to pay. The "recognition" of the artist of course came into the conversation, but what I think a lot of people miss is that the recognition isn't usually about the art itself, but rather, from peer group reputation. 

For an artist to become well-known enough and increase their work evaluations, they generally need advocates in the industry, insiders who are willing to say "check this person out" to people who are willing and able to take a risk and invest. If an artist is unable to make it into those kinds of networks and get advocacy for their art, no amount of artistic skill is going to be enough. 

Of course, "quality" still matters, because there has to be something that is engaging enough to compel the advocate to advertise forward. If there is nothing there to engage with, they have no reason to provide advocacy, as there is no payoff. Being an advocate might not come with financial reward, but there is still incentive through reputation, which is why a lot of corporations are very careful with who they provide advocacy for. A person who advocates for an artist is also putting their reputation on the line too, and they will be judged for it. At a lower level, it is like saying "I like this band" to a group of friends, where the risk is that they will find the same band trash.

> Eye of the beholder?

They say that the value of a piece of art is in the eye of the beholder, but this is not necessarily true, because there are trends that drive that eye. Just like with music, there are different styles of art, and some are going to attract certain types of audiences that are willing to pay a lot, whilst others might attract far more of an audience, of people not willing to pay very much. When it comes to investing into art with the goal of increasing wealth, scarcity is still one of the key factors. This means that the art has to be something unusual enough in style or topic that few people offer it. It can be replicated, but people will always *overpay* for originality. 

What constitutes "original" might be up for debate, but I believe that the range of diversity is decreasing, and becoming more homogenous, as we consume far more, far faster, and replicate to a greater degree. Not only that, the barrier to create has come down, meaning that more people have access to the tools of creation and get the feeling that they are making something unique, even if what they are doing is actually just an amalgamation of the work of others. A lot of the AI generated artwork is like this - anyone can do it, meaning that it is largely valueless. 

>Why pay when the cost to do ourselves is so low?

When it comes to something like food, there is a convenience factor associated, where we are willing to even eat lower quality, as long as it is fast. A colleague said today that they do not make food at home that takes them longer to cook, than to eat. So, what does that do to their range of cooking at home, and what does it mean for when they go to a restaurant? 

With such a range of food available made be professionals at a relatively cost effective price, how many people are willing to learn how to cook a wide range of food at home? Can you make a decent Thai curry, sushi, a great steak, an apple pie? Why go to all the effort of learning anything, when it is unlikely going to come close to matching the skills of the professionals? 

We have access to so much variation in content, that the skill of learning has become almost valueless itself, because we know that we aren't able to compete with the pros. In the past, there was the chance to be a ghetto superstar, known in the city, playing gigs, or selling some art locally. Now, there are mass platforms that open us up to a global audience, but we also have to compete with a global audience. Putting music on Spotify, means competing with Taylor Swift for attention. Putting a piece of art onto a platform, means competing with AI-generation. 

And, the irony is, that the more we consume of this convenient content, the less likely we are to create - especially anything of quality. Because, to create something quality takes more than talent, it also takes practice and dedication, and as we are constantly consuming, our own ability to spend time and attention lessens, and we are unable to improve enough, to get advocacy. 

> It is a downward spiral.

Of course, we might not notice it that much yet, because we feel that there is a growing amount of content being created, which is true, because there is more than we can ever consume. However, human nature is what it is, and too much to consume means, not enough space to find and support much else. While people are paying thousands to go to an international concert for the experience, the experience of local artists is that there aren't many eyes left for them. 

Maybe at some point people will turn back to more bespoke content, but at the moment, there is far more drive for convenient content that is easy to consume, that scratches the itch of spending time, even if it is not time well spent. People want to be in the in-group, be part of the masses, but get the feeling that they are unique - which is a strange contradiction, in my opinion.

> Do what everyone else does, but feel unique doing it.

There is money in it. Not too sure about value. 

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


</div>

Posted Using [InLeo Alpha](https://inleo.io/@tarazkp/hanging-out)