3 ms·
> People doubting that a thing is actually art at all seems to be a fairly consistent marker of something being good art. Survivorship bias. The successes are
by Igelau 6y ago
> People doubting that a thing is actually art at all seems to be a fairly consistent marker of something being good art.
Survivorship bias. The successes are highly visible, and we never hear of the failures.
> If readymades are art, if a blank canvas is art, then art is just a scam!
Ceci n'est pas une pipe. All art is a kind of deception.
- tinco 6y agoThe success is part of the art. A highschool kid scribbling "this is not a pipe" next to a pipe in his notebook is not the same as an accomplished artist convincing a gallery to feature it in an exhibition.
- Igelau 6y ago> The success is part of the art Not necessarily. Creators who toil in obscurity during life but receive posthumous recognition do happen.
- tinco 6y agoSure, but is still their accomplishment. The scribbling in the notebook would never receive eventual recognition unless something remarkable happened.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Jetrel 6y agoI'd point out that one thing about "con job" art like that is that, compared to craftsmanship art, where there's a steady paycheck for skilled work, "con art" is, well, the lottery. Tons of people try, and the vast majority make absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, in craftsman's art fields (all of the many ingredients that go into filmmaking, videogames, etc), if you're merely competent at what you do, it's like being a programmer - you learn the skills, and you get a job doing it, and my goodness - it pays a salary. There's no lottery involved. If you're a good matte painter, concept artist, 3d modeller, et cetera, illustrator, figure artist, etc, etc - people gladly pay money for it. -- Anecdotally, as someone in the games industry (and knowing some folks in film), the difference between these two fields (con art and skilled art) is pretty stark. Every person I've know who's tried to do con art has failed to make a career out of it, and every person who's gotten a degree-equivalent level of skill/effort into skilled art has earned a living doing it (in much the same way they would in programming).
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago> every person who's gotten a degree-equivalent level of skill/effort into skilled art has earned a living doing it Not for the folks I know. I know plenty of authors, painters, photographers, and ex-film-students who need day jobs. It's practically a trope. These are people with degrees in the subject who have already made professional money at it, but can't make enough steady money with it. (guessing here) If you met these people on the job, you'd know a lot more gainfully employed folks simply by definition.