6 ms·
The art world really bothers me. Every artist I know (successful or otherwise) admits that success at art is essentially a popularity contest. Art has been tra
by plaguuuuuu 8y ago
The art world really bothers me. Every artist I know (successful or otherwise) admits that success at art is essentially a popularity contest.
Art has been transformed from something that attempts to convey meaning and emotion, despite subjectivity and reliance on shared language specific to one's own culture, to a fetishization of an artwork's background narrative. ie the process (this particular painting of a square, that looks like every other uniform square painting, was done by doing xyz therefore it's different) and background story of the artist or artwork (this one was painted by a blind nun from some oppressed country). The artwork itself is meaningless save for the narrative surrounding it. It's impossible to understand or experience anything when looking at the artwork, but the background text next to it elucidates the narrative.
That's why "outsider art" is hilarious to me. In many cases it's totally accidental art, or a pisstake: see, comedy shows bringing random objects, like dustbins or fire hydrants, into galleries.. cue dozens of thoughtful onlookers - or even unrepentant shit. But the fetishization of narrative elevates it to mainstream acceptance (despite the artist not being in the cool kids' club). And conversely, in other cases, outsiders are the only ones actually making art in the first place, because everyone else on the inside is too busy trying to score it big by adhering to trends.
- nerdponx 8y agoI think the only difference between "then" and "now" is that "back then" you had to have some kind of mechanical, technical skill, like sculpting or painting. Now (1950s-present), anyone can do anything and call it "art". Without any kind of technical merit to separate "great", "good", "mediocre", and "bad", what do you have left but self-reinforcing popularity? Consider outsider music. It's outsider because it weird and usually lacks something in execution, e.g. recording quality.
- nafey 8y agoI have heard it being explained as invention of photography necessitated a different approach to art. As realism was no longer only possible through an artist they had to go in a different direction. Impressionism, which can perhaps be regarded as the first major artistic movement that tried to move away from realism, also began around the invention of camera.
- Viliam1234 8y agoWhy can't that "different approach" be simply painting (realistically) things that don't exist? For example: Pictures of something that existed in the past, but was destroyed. Or someone who died. Or a younger portrait of someone. Pictures that differ from reality, such as putting together two famous buildings that actually exist in different cities, near-equator stuff covered by snow, scenes containing objects with incorrect size... Or impossible structures, like Escher did, only more realistically. Science fiction, fantasy, fairy tales... Painting a "realistic" dragon requires skills, and cannot be replaced by photography. Why don't modern artists show their skills at this?
- bigbluedots 8y agoMaybe reinforces your point, but many types of jazz music can be quite 'outsider' for most people, despite the usually excellent execution.