Continuing the discussion from What will music consumption/creation look like in 20 years?:
This seems to deserve its own topic if we actually want to engage with these thoughts, rather than just get back to the original topic that spurred it.
I’d like to know more about why you feel like this @nutritionalzero. Based on 20+ years involved in open source projects ranging from “esoteric American art-coding” (as you called it), to operating system GUI’s, and affordable computing for schools there seems to be huge value for people all over the world, in all sorts of contexts, to open source projects.
Openness in artistic communities, both technical and otherwise, is vital for culture and learning … and for helping people develop and find their voice. Openness in this sense doesn’t negate the kind of hardship you referenced in your other post (“infant mortality, disease control issues, and religious unrest”), nor does it mean that open source projects need to be, or are, relevant for everyone in the world or solves all their problems – but I don’t see how that invalidates it or makes it less open. I’m not sure why this made you so angry in this context… do you believe no one should make art while people suffer? or that things aren’t “open” if they can’t involve everyone in all circumstances? … I’m not sure how to read it.
Open source in the non-art world has helped millions of people gain access to computing, runs most of the internet, and is a viable vocation to earn a living in many cases. And it’s how so many people learn how to make software, which is incredibly empowering. This is non-trivial. So I’m again not sure why you’d paint all of open source with the same brush, even if you think that open source art-code is irrelevant or not really “open” …
I also feel like there are a lot of assumptions in the idea that spending time on open source projects, or art, comes from privilege and/or can’t be a way to earn a living.