If we're only lucky

There is no statement more melancholic: "Art is a form of property."

To be sure, the concept and workings of our current economy are not lost on me: in short, we live too comfortably in a dandy consumerist world wherein the capitalist system controlled by the few closely assumes the role of Big Brother to the many.

Back to the point, having always felt that art is created at the intersection of some artist's self-expression and creative ingenuity that is free of any possible bounds another person can place upon it, there is a sad sort of dissonance in it being referred to as one would a cheap Target product--a pack of bananas, a box of band-aids, a deck of cards, or what have you. While our reality makes it impossible for me to argue against the notion of art being a form of property, I want to rebel against it being valued solely as such. Troemel's essay thankfully elaborates--almost a little too much and for too long--on the effect social media has on the trajectory of art and their artists, which brings to mind the hollow attitude in which society now appreciates art. The heated discourse I have observed but never partook in online from between freelance digital artists and "lovers" of their art--though "calculating, insensitive cheapos" would probably be a more apt description--is telling of the growing devaluation of art as a work of laborious creation and increasing sentiment for it as a factory commodity. Although difficult, there is definite need to rewire the way in which we view and value' creative pursuits and creative results.