7 ms·

the old masters were certainly talented but you could argue much of their fame comes from there being so few people who'd have had the means to pursue their art

the old masters were certainly talented but you could argue much of their fame comes from there being so few people who'd have had the means to pursue their art hundred of years ago whereas nowadays many people can find the means one way or another.

watwut 5y ago
Are you sure 1922 was worst then 2022 for drawing? You could have had steady income from being a painter in the past afaik. People nowadays just don't buy originals, but they used to in the past.
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  People do buy originals - where are you getting this from? There are mini art galleries all over the place. You could argue perhaps that the proportion is lower, but then we have a lot more people bopping around...
  - watwut 5y ago
    > You could argue perhaps that the proportion is lower, but then we have a lot more people bopping around... Yeah, that is what I meant. Amount of people buying actual drawings as gifts or to decorate office/house is smaller.
    - throwaway22032 5y ago
      The proportion is lower, but is the absolute amount lower?
      - watwut 5y ago
        I would think so, yes. Living off making paintings and selling them is not a thing anymore. Some outliers exists and some artists supplement income like that. World changed, economy changed. Painting and portraits is something artists still learn, do as hobby or stunt (1 minute portrait drawings and such), but actually live off other things because market moved away from it.
    - mywittyname 5y ago
      Artists have much more flexibility today. They can create an original, have prints made to sell in the hundreds or thousands for $10, then sell the original to the one person willing to pay a few hundred bucks for it. There's tons of original art available. I live in a small midwestern city and have no problem finding studios that "traditional" art. There are a few larger retail galleries where artists will rent out stalls to sell their work, some will set up shop next to an antique store and sell their work along with a card telling you to come next door to their gallery, and many just have their own retail store fronts. Usually in smaller, town squares. University exhibitions are a great way to pick up original pieces for dirt cheap. Lots of university students are happy to get something for their work/assignments, and most students are already very talented by the time they get to uni.
      - watwut 5y ago
        > University exhibitions are a great way to pick up original pieces for dirt cheap. Lots of university students are happy to get something for their work/assignments, and most students are already very talented by the time they get to uni. Yeah, but none of them is living off those paintings. It is some little extra money at best. You said it is dirt cheap, that means they earn much less then minimum wage on those paintings. I know you can buy cheap digital copies of good looking art. That does not make it easier to life off it then "hundred years ago". It makes it harder. My point is not that it is hard to find good artists today. It is that past had many periods, including hundred years ago, in which market for painting specifically was better then market for paintings now. And it meant more people pursuing painting as a job.
        mywittyname 5y ago
        You're ignoring the whole other segment of my post pointing out that there are dozens of art galleries in my tiny city where artists make money selling their traditional art work. And not just eking out a living money: they make enough money to have retail store fronts! If it's this prevalent in a no-name city, places like NYC, Chicago, SF, etc must have hundreds or thousands of art galleries. I have an entire house full of original paintings. Most of them were purchased in a retail gallery. It's not hard to find people who paint/draw for a living. The fact that original work can be subsidized through the sale of digital replicas make the field so much more economical than it was in the past. It's no longer the case that you need to be a wealthy family to have a painting commissioned. I've had several done.
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  People bought copies back in 1922 (and 1822, for that matter). Not everyone having artwork in their homes had originals. Some of those copies became so ubiquitous that sometimes they morphed into kitsch (see Dürer's "Praying Hands") much like modern art prints do today. You could make a point that a lot less people back then had artwork in their homes back in the day, because living conditions of the masses were a lot more cramped and life was more difficult. But copies definitely were available and widespread.
  - watwut 5y ago
    "The original" was probably bad word. The copy was still painting and money for it went to some painter.

watwut 5y ago

Are you sure 1922 was worst then 2022 for drawing? You could have had steady income from being a painter in the past afaik. People nowadays just don't buy originals, but they used to in the past.

throwaway22032 5y ago
People do buy originals - where are you getting this from? There are mini art galleries all over the place. You could argue perhaps that the proportion is lower, but then we have a lot more people bopping around...
- watwut 5y ago
  > You could argue perhaps that the proportion is lower, but then we have a lot more people bopping around... Yeah, that is what I meant. Amount of people buying actual drawings as gifts or to decorate office/house is smaller.
  - throwaway22032 5y ago
    The proportion is lower, but is the absolute amount lower?
    - watwut 5y ago
      I would think so, yes. Living off making paintings and selling them is not a thing anymore. Some outliers exists and some artists supplement income like that. World changed, economy changed. Painting and portraits is something artists still learn, do as hobby or stunt (1 minute portrait drawings and such), but actually live off other things because market moved away from it.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    Artists have much more flexibility today. They can create an original, have prints made to sell in the hundreds or thousands for $10, then sell the original to the one person willing to pay a few hundred bucks for it. There's tons of original art available. I live in a small midwestern city and have no problem finding studios that "traditional" art. There are a few larger retail galleries where artists will rent out stalls to sell their work, some will set up shop next to an antique store and sell their work along with a card telling you to come next door to their gallery, and many just have their own retail store fronts. Usually in smaller, town squares. University exhibitions are a great way to pick up original pieces for dirt cheap. Lots of university students are happy to get something for their work/assignments, and most students are already very talented by the time they get to uni.
    - watwut 5y ago
      > University exhibitions are a great way to pick up original pieces for dirt cheap. Lots of university students are happy to get something for their work/assignments, and most students are already very talented by the time they get to uni. Yeah, but none of them is living off those paintings. It is some little extra money at best. You said it is dirt cheap, that means they earn much less then minimum wage on those paintings. I know you can buy cheap digital copies of good looking art. That does not make it easier to life off it then "hundred years ago". It makes it harder. My point is not that it is hard to find good artists today. It is that past had many periods, including hundred years ago, in which market for painting specifically was better then market for paintings now. And it meant more people pursuing painting as a job.
      - mywittyname 5y ago
        You're ignoring the whole other segment of my post pointing out that there are dozens of art galleries in my tiny city where artists make money selling their traditional art work. And not just eking out a living money: they make enough money to have retail store fronts! If it's this prevalent in a no-name city, places like NYC, Chicago, SF, etc must have hundreds or thousands of art galleries. I have an entire house full of original paintings. Most of them were purchased in a retail gallery. It's not hard to find people who paint/draw for a living. The fact that original work can be subsidized through the sale of digital replicas make the field so much more economical than it was in the past. It's no longer the case that you need to be a wealthy family to have a painting commissioned. I've had several done.
DocTomoe 5y ago
People bought copies back in 1922 (and 1822, for that matter). Not everyone having artwork in their homes had originals. Some of those copies became so ubiquitous that sometimes they morphed into kitsch (see Dürer's "Praying Hands") much like modern art prints do today. You could make a point that a lot less people back then had artwork in their homes back in the day, because living conditions of the masses were a lot more cramped and life was more difficult. But copies definitely were available and widespread.
- watwut 5y ago
  "The original" was probably bad word. The copy was still painting and money for it went to some painter.