3 ms·

> This may be inevitable, and it has mostly happened with music, journalism, etc., What on earth are you talking about? Some of the best artworks - in all cate

by z3c0 4y ago

> This may be inevitable, and it has mostly happened with music, journalism, etc., What on earth are you talking about? Some of the best artworks - in all categories mentioned, and beyond - come with a flippancy towards marketability, aka the avant-garde. The detachment of capital from expression will only prompt more earnest expression.

QuadrupleA 4y ago
Art is made by people, who need food, housing, etc. If they can support themselves in some way through their craft, then they can spend more time at, and less washing dishes at a restuarant, and be better at it. Yes business can cheapen and corrupt, and produce commercialized crap (which apparently people like and will pay for so it's serving some need). But there are plenty of artists out there with integrity who also make a living at it.
- z3c0 4y ago
  You're conflating demands for capital with an artist's desire to create, and most artists would do the latter regardless of the former. In fact, you even said it yourself - artists who create for capital are forced to produce more shallow art for the masses. Art is a pursuit of the divine, not capital, and pursuing one will come at the expense of the other.
barry-cotter 4y ago
> What on earth are you talking about? Some of the best artworks - in all categories mentioned, and beyond - come with a flippancy towards marketability, aka the avant-garde. The detachment of capital from expression will only prompt more earnest expression. Is this an “Artists should come from rich families“ or “Be like Picasso and Warhol. Attend the right parties with the right people and you can attract the right patrons too.”? The only people who can be flippant with regards to marketability are those who have family money, an extremely supportive spouse, a patron or are willing to live in poverty.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  > The only people who can be flippant with regards to marketability are those who have family money, an extremely supportive spouse, a patron or are willing to live in poverty. Art has always been pursued under these exact circumstances, and literature was no exception historically. Mass-marketable art is very much the exception, not the rule. And often it's even the least interesting kind, because it's the most predictable in its features - more of a skilled craft than art in a narrowly creative sense.
- z3c0 4y ago
  > The only people who can be flippant with regards to marketability are those who have family money, an extremely supportive spouse, a patron or are willing to live in poverty. In this aside, you just described most artists. Picasso and Warhol are the two biggest pop stars in art history, and the worst possible examples of what constitutes the average artist.

by z3c0 4y ago

QuadrupleA 4y ago

Art is made by people, who need food, housing, etc. If they can support themselves in some way through their craft, then they can spend more time at, and less washing dishes at a restuarant, and be better at it. Yes business can cheapen and corrupt, and produce commercialized crap (which apparently people like and will pay for so it's serving some need). But there are plenty of artists out there with integrity who also make a living at it.

z3c0 4y ago
You're conflating demands for capital with an artist's desire to create, and most artists would do the latter regardless of the former. In fact, you even said it yourself - artists who create for capital are forced to produce more shallow art for the masses. Art is a pursuit of the divine, not capital, and pursuing one will come at the expense of the other.

barry-cotter 4y ago

> What on earth are you talking about? Some of the best artworks - in all categories mentioned, and beyond - come with a flippancy towards marketability, aka the avant-garde. The detachment of capital from expression will only prompt more earnest expression. Is this an “Artists should come from rich families“ or “Be like Picasso and Warhol. Attend the right parties with the right people and you can attract the right patrons too.”? The only people who can be flippant with regards to marketability are those who have family money, an extremely supportive spouse, a patron or are willing to live in poverty.

zozbot234 4y ago
> The only people who can be flippant with regards to marketability are those who have family money, an extremely supportive spouse, a patron or are willing to live in poverty. Art has always been pursued under these exact circumstances, and literature was no exception historically. Mass-marketable art is very much the exception, not the rule. And often it's even the least interesting kind, because it's the most predictable in its features - more of a skilled craft than art in a narrowly creative sense.
z3c0 4y ago
> The only people who can be flippant with regards to marketability are those who have family money, an extremely supportive spouse, a patron or are willing to live in poverty. In this aside, you just described most artists. Picasso and Warhol are the two biggest pop stars in art history, and the worst possible examples of what constitutes the average artist.