4 ms·
This is very link-bait-y. Declaring the death of anything is usually link-bait, but the death of the artist is absurd. I get the argument, which is basically -
by themartorana 12y ago
This is very link-bait-y.
Declaring the death of anything is usually link-bait, but the death of the artist is absurd. I get the argument, which is basically - the economics have changed a bit.
But this idea that genius is gone and in its place is entrepreneurship, is just so, so silly. All artists are in marketing, sales, and so on, and always have been. Dali was as much a self-promotion genius as he was an artist. Not much has changed except the ability to view the past through the curved lens of history.
Geniuses still exist in all of the arts. Nothing has changed. Nothing is dead.
- williamcotton 12y agoAll artists are in marketing, sales, and so on, and always have been. Let's take The Beatles. Sure, they captured the zeitgeist and handled the songwriting and performance duties, but they had an incredibly skilled support network that produced and engineered their records, made sure that people knew who they were and got the best deals for live gigs, distribution, etc, etc. Dali relied on an entire ecosystem of galleries, museums, critics, curators and collectors. Whatever concept of "lone genius" you're envisioning is pure fantasy.
- andyidsinga 12y agoit isn't just that the economics have changed a bit though, its that the changes in the economics seem to have a disproportionate affect on what artists try to say with their art vs making art that appeals to the customer. What having a single or small number of patrons means vs everyone being your customer.