Disclaimer, I’m a layperson when it comes to art. I’ve taken one art history class so I could probably talk about various art styles, but I’m no expert. In my

Disclaimer, I’m a layperson when it comes to art. I’ve taken one art history class so I could probably talk about various art styles, but I’m no expert. In my experience of visiting art museums, some of the classical and renaissance art is incredible. There is clearly some profound idea behind the piece, and the skill is the vehicle of that idea. A huge amount of art, though, is simply commissioned portraits of some wealthy businessman or forgettable Duke. The purpose of these paintings is simply to represent reality. There is no idea behind it. For the artists painting them, the camera must have been devastating. It meant that years of training in studying how to properly draw an eye and how to get the colors inside a shadow right were at risk of being entirely devalued. But the camera also laid bare the fact that art is more than just skill. I imagine a lot of artists who were coasting by on skill alone hated the camera. We’re at that point now with digital art. The cost of skill in actually drawing a thing is now zero. Anyone can do it. The question is, do they have anything to say?