4 ms·
Uh, sure. Every single piece of art that anyone knows by name was created professionally. It was created in order to feed the person who developed a craft to a
by scheeseman486 3y ago
Uh, sure. Every single piece of art that anyone knows by name was created professionally. It was created in order to feed the person who developed a craft to a sufficient level to be noteworthy.
Sure, anyone can (and should!) express themselves creatively and yes, that is art. But that’s clearly not what’s going on here, regardless of how dumb anyone wants to play.
Yeah, Van Gogh was a real celebrity.
edited to add what I was actually responding to
- ethanbond 3y agoI didn’t say they were celebrities? Van Gogh was making art to sell it (unsuccessfully).
- scheeseman486 3y agoBy most he accounts he made art for the sake of it, selling works was a means to an end. A single painting sold doesn't make for much of a "profession". That's my main issue with your POV, I think you're projecting your own values on to a lot of artists who don't share them.
- ethanbond 3y agoNope, Van Gogh was always sketching and making art, but he didn't produce any noteworthy pieces until he actively decided to become a full-time artist. He made the decision to become an artist after several failed career paths... that's a hint.
- scheeseman486 3y agoIt indicates that social safety nets in the 1800s weren't very extant and that dedicating more time to artistic work produces better works. Van Gogh's choice to turn his hobby into a career wasn't their first choice? That's a hint. Cavemen weren't scrawling on walls to pay off their 401ks, there's more to art than commerce.