Comment by munificent
5 days ago
> Did Photoshop kill graphic artists? Did film kill theatre?
To a first approximation, the answer to both of these is "yes".
There is still a lot of graphic design work out there (though generative AI will be sucking the marrow out of it soon), but far less than there used to be before the desktop publishing revolution. And the kind of work changed. If "graphic design" to you meant sitting at a drafting table with pencil and paper, those jobs largely evaporated. If that was a kind of work that was rewarding and meaningful to you, that option was removed for you.
Theatre even more so. Yes, there are still some theatres. But the number of people who get to work in theatrical acting, set design, costuming, etc. is a tiny tiny fraction of what it used to be. And those people are barely scraping together a living, and usually working side jobs just to pay their bills.
> it feels a bit like mourning the loss of punch cards when terminals showed up.
I think people deserve the right to mourn the loss of experiences that are meaningful and enjoyable to them, even if those experiences turn out to no longer be maximally economically efficient according to the Great Capitalistic Moral Code.
Does it mean that we should preserve antiquated jobs and suffer the societal effects of inefficiency without bound? Probably not.
But we should remember that the ultimate goal of the economic system is to enable people to live with meaning and dignity. Efficiency is a means to that end.
But the number of people who get to work in theatrical acting, set design, costuming
I think this ends up being recency bias and terminology hairsplitting, in the end. The number of people working in theatre mask design went to nearly zero quite a while back but we still call the stuff in the centuries after that 'theatre' and 'acting'.
I'm not trying to split hairs.
I think "theatre" is a fairly well-defined term to refer to live performances of works that are not strictly musical. Gather up all of the professions necessary to put those productions on together.
The number of opportunities for those professions today is much smaller than it was a hundred years ago before film ate the world.
There are only so many audience members and a night they spend watching a film or watching TV or playing videogames is a night they don't spend going to a play. The result is much smaller audiences. And with fewer audiences, there are fewer plays.
Maybe I should have been clearer that I'm not including film and video production here. Yes, there are definitely opportunities there, though acting for a camera is not at all the same experience as acting for a live audience.
> I think "theatre" is a fairly well-defined term to refer to live performances of works
Doesn't it mean cinema too? edit: Even though it was clear from context you meant live theatre.
Right but modern theatre is pretty new itself. The number of people involved in performance for the enjoyment of others has spiked, err, dramatically. My point is that making this type argument seems to invariably involve picking some narrow thing and elevating it to a true and valuable artform deserving special consideration and mourning. Does it have a non-special-pleading variety?
3 replies →
Sitting in a moving car and sitting on a moving horse are both called "riding", but I think we can all appreciate how useless it is to equate the two.
They aren't, broadly speaking, interesting forms of expression so the fact you can draw some trivial string match analogy doesn't seem worth much discussion.
1 reply →