Yeah, I couldn't ever give a fuck. Gurantee there were other just as interesting artists in Van Goghs time that didnt get the same arbitrary appeal he did.
Van Gogh was poor his entire life and wasn't well known at all until well after his death, I get the feeling yall just assumed he was bourgeois because his art is acclaimed now. weird take in context
He would of been on the streets if he wasnt being financially supported by his brother his entire life. He could have gotten a job or something to support himself.
And were saying that there are plenty of artists who were doing interesting stuff at the same time who likely just fell to the wayside of history or are somewhat known but over shadowed by the modern capitalist context where van gogh paintings are millions of dollars for no real reason
Likewise i feel like socialist who support this exceptionalism in the arts are just afraid that their consumer habits and taste are being questioned, my position ameliorates this anxiety because you see tastemakers for what they are and can form your own true understanding of art history/art taste
He would of been on the streets if he wasnt being financially supported by his brother his entire life.
Not to say Van Gogh is of equal value politically (lol), but you could say this about Marx with Engels. It's not a bad thing that an artist was supported, or that because of that his work should be ignored or destroyed (not that you you claimed that necessarily). Ideally, many more could have been in his same situation, but that's not possible to change retroactively.
I don't see why it's "exceptionalism" to want his work to be respected, I wouldn't want much less famous pieces of art tarnished either.
Also, if you want other artists to have had the opportunity for recognition, saying Van Gogh should have "gotten a job or something to support himself" is pretty weird. You don't think there were artists with great potential who could not develop it or produce enough notable work exactly because they needed to work some shitty job instead? That's like the exact opposite prescription for wanting more artists to make great work and get recognition and acclaim. Not sure what you want really
I feel like all people can make great work, ideally it should be normal to make great work to the point that there's no reason to have recognition and acclaim. I believe that that world exists. Ideally art should only have importance to the community around that artist.
I feel like the enshrinement of certain artists works against that idea and also works against the recognition of "lesser" artists because it's not the enshrined artist.
I think this kind of thinking leads to preserving the world as we know it.
I dont think having a job actually prevents great art. I think bad formative education and destroyed communities does.
On that note, why would someone have to work in a mine while someone else would get to make all day long? Doesn't seem fair that one person gets to explore an entire microcosm to its fullest, go on this intense spiritual journey and develop their highly personal craft while one person toils in a mine. I feel like the idea of not having a job and just being an artist doesn't add up to a fair of a society.
ideally it should be normal to make great work to the point that there’s no reason to have recognition and acclaim. I believe that that world exists. Ideally art should only have importance to the community around that artist.
Yeah I just completely disagree with this. Why should art only have importance to community surrounding an artist? People can enjoy art from all kinds of different contexts that they would never be familiar with. That is one of the beautiful things about art is enjoying perspectives unlike your own. And even if it were desirable to have no especially acclaimed artists, I don't think differing recognition for different art would ever disappear because people will always have differing preferences, and some art will resonate with more people or more effectively. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that if people are more or less equally able to pursue art if they choose. I see no problem with some art getting more attention than other art in and of itself. It's the denial of the possibility to make art to so many that is an issue.
Doesn’t seem fair that one person gets to explore an entire microcosm to its fullest, go on this intense spiritual journey and develop their highly personal craft while one person toils in a mine.
Some people will always choose not to make any art, or choose to make less or spend less time improving their art than others. Framing it as issue of fairness that some people are only artists for work and others are not assumes everyone has equal desire to produce art, or to improve it constantly.
Not to say no one working a mine wouldn't like to make art too, or even that many artists could have other jobs. But even in an ideal world, I value equal opportunity to choose art production instead of attempting to make art a completely despecialized activity because people have differing levels of interest in it and because one can spend a lifetime perfecting their art, so allowing the most driven to specialize enables art that requires or is greatly improved by much higher investments of time than people just making some art after work could or would want to make.
Good art will always find its audience, it doesnt need to be a commodity or institutionalized.
I disagree with you entirely, I think people are alienated from the arts so they appear to be uninterested in art. I think art is an essential part of humanity. If given the knowledge, the community and tools to do art, no one would pick miner over art/music/literature etc. I think the way and time people invest in art would change if everyone had the same opportunity.
Insanely specialized artists should be earned by a society that can reasonably accomodate them and not fuck over some dude working in a mine.
Good art will always find its audience, it doesnt need to be a commodity or institutionalized.
How though? It doesn't need to be a commodity, but any kind of display of art by not-the-artist is some kind of institution, whether it's a museum, an online archive, a concert venue, etc. How would art finds it audience if not through some kind of institution?
I think people are alienated from the arts so they appear to be uninterested in art. I think art is an essential part of humanity. If given the knowledge, the community and tools to do art, no one would pick miner over art/music/literature etc.
Maybe so, but I really doubt that everyone would pick to be a specialized artist over some other job that is self-actualizing, like a doctor or a teacher. You are fixated on this miner example as its a difficult, tedious job to say art should not be a specialized profession. I think that goes too far and ignores real differences in preferences that will always be. Even if everyone wants to make art, maybe that's true in an unalienated world, if they want to at differing degrees, that's enough for specialization.
Insanely specialized artists should be earned by a society that can reasonably accomodate them and not fuck over some dude working in a mine.
There are enough resources today to accommodate both specialized artsts and miners, and every other job. I think this buys into the false idea that scarcity is what impoverishes workers doing things like mining and not the allocation of existing, plentiful resources. I don't want to fuck over the guy in the mine. I think the example of the DPRK is a good one here, where mining jobs are highly, highly rewarded to compensate for their lack of appeal. Society can support artists and support miners, loggers, garbageworkers, etc. even more
Fair enough, but I don't see why art isn't worth preserving just because it's bourgeois. There's cultural and historical value to preserving works by bourgeois types, works made by patronized people under feudalism, and so on.
Right, also many of these famous artists existed only with the financial support of their friends and family and/or died penniless never having actually labored. Like that should be a deafening statement but no.
Or another angle
Dalis father was a lawyer and was a fascist
Stravinsky was born from elites and was a known Mussolini supporter lol, having the opinion that only individuals can create great art puts you in bed with fucking absolute shitheads and rich kids.
The truth is ANYBODY can make GREAT art if given the chance to really pursue it. Museums are kind of against that idea and enshrine a bunch of bulllllshit
The truth is ANYBODY can make GREAT art if given the chance to really pursue it. Museums are kind of against that idea and enshrine a bunch of bulllllshit
You kind of hit on something I've been thinking about, that especially with modern tools there are countless artists today who in terms of sheer technical ability far outstrip any of the old artists still celebrated as geniuses or masters, to the extent that "being good at art" is devalued and most have to make a living the same way as most historical artists: by doing vapid commissions for people with money to throw at them. Maybe the number who could have picked up and worked with the cruder and shittier tools available in the past is much lower, because that requires a different level of dedication and entails learning a different set of skills and techniques, but tools are such a quintessential part of human labor that "ah but what if your tools sucked, like they were the absolute worst, and cost ten times as much despite being awful, where would you be then?" is kind of a copout.
Although that said, I also think old art is something to be preserved for its historical value just because it's a physical chunk of human culture that's survived to the modern day. It has a sort of value to it that's distinct from its literal quality or the ethics of its creation, like how ancient Roman statues and mosaics and the like were all mass-produced trash (mosaics especially: there objectively were good works of art by skilled artisans in that time period, and there are mountains of half-assed standard-template pieces that still got fucked up by being done haphazardly and cheaply by the contractors that put them in) made at the demand of a class of idle slavers in an incredibly vile, chauvinist culture, but the bits and pieces that have survived to this day are still valuable artifacts because they're a glimpse of human history.
Yeah, I couldn't ever give a fuck. Gurantee there were other just as interesting artists in Van Goghs time that didnt get the same arbitrary appeal he did.
deleted by creator
Van Gogh was poor his entire life and wasn't well known at all until well after his death, I get the feeling yall just assumed he was bourgeois because his art is acclaimed now. weird take in context
He would of been on the streets if he wasnt being financially supported by his brother his entire life. He could have gotten a job or something to support himself.
And were saying that there are plenty of artists who were doing interesting stuff at the same time who likely just fell to the wayside of history or are somewhat known but over shadowed by the modern capitalist context where van gogh paintings are millions of dollars for no real reason
Likewise i feel like socialist who support this exceptionalism in the arts are just afraid that their consumer habits and taste are being questioned, my position ameliorates this anxiety because you see tastemakers for what they are and can form your own true understanding of art history/art taste
Not to say Van Gogh is of equal value politically (lol), but you could say this about Marx with Engels. It's not a bad thing that an artist was supported, or that because of that his work should be ignored or destroyed (not that you you claimed that necessarily). Ideally, many more could have been in his same situation, but that's not possible to change retroactively.
I don't see why it's "exceptionalism" to want his work to be respected, I wouldn't want much less famous pieces of art tarnished either.
Also, if you want other artists to have had the opportunity for recognition, saying Van Gogh should have "gotten a job or something to support himself" is pretty weird. You don't think there were artists with great potential who could not develop it or produce enough notable work exactly because they needed to work some shitty job instead? That's like the exact opposite prescription for wanting more artists to make great work and get recognition and acclaim. Not sure what you want really
I feel like all people can make great work, ideally it should be normal to make great work to the point that there's no reason to have recognition and acclaim. I believe that that world exists. Ideally art should only have importance to the community around that artist.
I feel like the enshrinement of certain artists works against that idea and also works against the recognition of "lesser" artists because it's not the enshrined artist.
I think this kind of thinking leads to preserving the world as we know it.
I dont think having a job actually prevents great art. I think bad formative education and destroyed communities does.
On that note, why would someone have to work in a mine while someone else would get to make all day long? Doesn't seem fair that one person gets to explore an entire microcosm to its fullest, go on this intense spiritual journey and develop their highly personal craft while one person toils in a mine. I feel like the idea of not having a job and just being an artist doesn't add up to a fair of a society.
Yeah I just completely disagree with this. Why should art only have importance to community surrounding an artist? People can enjoy art from all kinds of different contexts that they would never be familiar with. That is one of the beautiful things about art is enjoying perspectives unlike your own. And even if it were desirable to have no especially acclaimed artists, I don't think differing recognition for different art would ever disappear because people will always have differing preferences, and some art will resonate with more people or more effectively. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that if people are more or less equally able to pursue art if they choose. I see no problem with some art getting more attention than other art in and of itself. It's the denial of the possibility to make art to so many that is an issue.
Some people will always choose not to make any art, or choose to make less or spend less time improving their art than others. Framing it as issue of fairness that some people are only artists for work and others are not assumes everyone has equal desire to produce art, or to improve it constantly.
Not to say no one working a mine wouldn't like to make art too, or even that many artists could have other jobs. But even in an ideal world, I value equal opportunity to choose art production instead of attempting to make art a completely despecialized activity because people have differing levels of interest in it and because one can spend a lifetime perfecting their art, so allowing the most driven to specialize enables art that requires or is greatly improved by much higher investments of time than people just making some art after work could or would want to make.
Good art will always find its audience, it doesnt need to be a commodity or institutionalized.
I disagree with you entirely, I think people are alienated from the arts so they appear to be uninterested in art. I think art is an essential part of humanity. If given the knowledge, the community and tools to do art, no one would pick miner over art/music/literature etc. I think the way and time people invest in art would change if everyone had the same opportunity.
Insanely specialized artists should be earned by a society that can reasonably accomodate them and not fuck over some dude working in a mine.
How though? It doesn't need to be a commodity, but any kind of display of art by not-the-artist is some kind of institution, whether it's a museum, an online archive, a concert venue, etc. How would art finds it audience if not through some kind of institution?
Maybe so, but I really doubt that everyone would pick to be a specialized artist over some other job that is self-actualizing, like a doctor or a teacher. You are fixated on this miner example as its a difficult, tedious job to say art should not be a specialized profession. I think that goes too far and ignores real differences in preferences that will always be. Even if everyone wants to make art, maybe that's true in an unalienated world, if they want to at differing degrees, that's enough for specialization.
There are enough resources today to accommodate both specialized artsts and miners, and every other job. I think this buys into the false idea that scarcity is what impoverishes workers doing things like mining and not the allocation of existing, plentiful resources. I don't want to fuck over the guy in the mine. I think the example of the DPRK is a good one here, where mining jobs are highly, highly rewarded to compensate for their lack of appeal. Society can support artists and support miners, loggers, garbageworkers, etc. even more
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Fair enough, but I don't see why art isn't worth preserving just because it's bourgeois. There's cultural and historical value to preserving works by bourgeois types, works made by patronized people under feudalism, and so on.
Right, also many of these famous artists existed only with the financial support of their friends and family and/or died penniless never having actually labored. Like that should be a deafening statement but no.
Or another angle
Dalis father was a lawyer and was a fascist
Stravinsky was born from elites and was a known Mussolini supporter lol, having the opinion that only individuals can create great art puts you in bed with fucking absolute shitheads and rich kids.
The truth is ANYBODY can make GREAT art if given the chance to really pursue it. Museums are kind of against that idea and enshrine a bunch of bulllllshit
You kind of hit on something I've been thinking about, that especially with modern tools there are countless artists today who in terms of sheer technical ability far outstrip any of the old artists still celebrated as geniuses or masters, to the extent that "being good at art" is devalued and most have to make a living the same way as most historical artists: by doing vapid commissions for people with money to throw at them. Maybe the number who could have picked up and worked with the cruder and shittier tools available in the past is much lower, because that requires a different level of dedication and entails learning a different set of skills and techniques, but tools are such a quintessential part of human labor that "ah but what if your tools sucked, like they were the absolute worst, and cost ten times as much despite being awful, where would you be then?" is kind of a copout.
Although that said, I also think old art is something to be preserved for its historical value just because it's a physical chunk of human culture that's survived to the modern day. It has a sort of value to it that's distinct from its literal quality or the ethics of its creation, like how ancient Roman statues and mosaics and the like were all mass-produced trash (mosaics especially: there objectively were good works of art by skilled artisans in that time period, and there are mountains of half-assed standard-template pieces that still got fucked up by being done haphazardly and cheaply by the contractors that put them in) made at the demand of a class of idle slavers in an incredibly vile, chauvinist culture, but the bits and pieces that have survived to this day are still valuable artifacts because they're a glimpse of human history.