Citation?

Right, racial profiling. Which race was it that has never been in any violent confrontation with the US?

At least, it's not new in the long view of what art is. Art need not be representational of real life, a fact that was explored in great detail after the invention of the camera. The view that art needs to be beautiful is simplistic. Beauty is subjective, and it's entirely possible to make beautiful art out of ugly things and ugly art out of beautiful things. While I agree with another poster who said that art should be able to stand on it's own without explanation, that's just my opinion. There's nothing wrong with making something that's not understandable without explanation. Also, art has a long tradition of people not accepting new forms and media as Real Art. Maybe this form of art is a dead end. Maybe it will lead somewhere interesting. Either way is okay. And it's perfectly acceptable to admit that it's art, and still think that it's crap.

Surely you have a citation for the claim that you made in the first sentence.

Overreact much?

I'm not arguing that the overall supply of art isn't far greater than the overall demand. But that's not important because not all art is worth the same amount. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold, and once it's been refined one bar of it is worth no more than another. That's not so with art. The demand for some art is higher than the demand for other art.

As I said, the current laws are broken. They last far too long and media companies have gone about protecting their assets in a stupid way. But throwing them out completely is an overreaction. There's no reason that we can't have copyrights last for a reasonable amount of time. The fact that some art may not take much time to create isn't relevant. Sure, you are free to take into account the time it takes to make art. Most people don't.

I have no problem with businesses owning copyrights and/or paying artists to work for hire. If a business hires an artist and the artist agrees to give up the copyright, then both parties have agreed to the terms and there's no problem. Artists are free to make their own business, or just sell their work outright, keeping all the profit for themselves. The reason that most don't is because they'd rather be making art than running a business.

If we consider the supply to be infinite digital copies, then yes, the supply is effectively more than the demand. If we consider the supply to be the relatively small amount of new work that most people spend their time watching and listening to, then the supply is limited and the demand is effectively unlimited. Yes, digital things can be infinitely reproduced. Does that mean that content creators shouldn't get paid? I say no. Are you saying that copyright laws are a handout? Though the current system is broken, at their core they are just laws that allow people to distribute a product and have a chance at making a profit. There are laws in place to protect all kinds of occupations. I don't see how artists deserve any less. You don't like art too much. Okay. I don't have any problem with any of the ways you listed that you get your tiny art fix. That "free" stuff you mention is mostly paid for by advertising, and still protected by copyright. But let me get this right. You are perfectly satisfied with all of the art in your life and the way in which you receive it. You're against copyright... why? Or were you just complaining about artists getting paid to do work that isn't "real" or vital to the survival of the human species?

There's actually a huge demand for artwork, and we we can make it faster and get it to more customers, faster, than ever before. You're right that a lot of people want to make art for a living, and yes, some of those will be weeded out, just like any job. I am all for someone sitting in their bedroom, making art of whatever kind, and releasing it for free. But those people simply cannot keep up the pace with people who do it full time. Those people cannot keep up with industry trends as well. Those people cannot improve as quickly. And though it's possible, it's damn hard for them to make anything large like a feature film. The only film I worked on used limited animation (think late night Cartoon Network) and it still took dozens of animators thousands of hours- and that's just part of making the film, even if you take out all of the business and advertising stuff. Take a look at your ipod. Take a look at your DVD shelf. Take a look at the art on your walls. How much of that was done by independent artists who did their work for free? Maybe you're an exception, but probably little or none.

Whoah, buddy, you don't get to speak for all artists. I love doing art and I'd do it anyway, but if I'm going to spend 40+ hours a week doing it, I need to get paid. Feel free to make however much art you want and give it away, but just because that works for you doesn't mean that it works for everyone, or that it's the best way for art to be made.

Just because you don't see the point of a question doesn't mean that it's a stupid question.

Your burger doesn't look as good as the one in the picture for a couple of reasons. One is that the artists making the picture are extremely good at showing the product in a flattering way, and that's not going to change. Another part of that is because some products simply can't sit under hot lights for an hour, so they don't even use the real thing. The only thing that removing digital alteration from the process will do is force advertisers to use non-digital means of making their products look good. Non-digital airbrushing is still effective, just not as cheap. The burger on the menu will still look like a team of professional artists worked to make it look at good as possible, and the burger on your plate will still look like it was assembled by a high school kid in a hurry.

Yeah, just hit the "Make It Awesome" button. Seriously though, television shows and movies show people curing diseases in an hour, hacking into anything from anywhere in minutes, and basically doing things that are completely fucking impossible in a time frame that's unrealistic for even a modest project. That's not real life. Though there are some things that computers make really easy, that doesn't mean that everything that's done with them is easy. Just because you install word doesn't mean that you can write anything worth reading. That part still takes a lot of work. It's the same with CGI.

It's almost as though different users have different needs.