I feel personally attacked by this. I’m very good at communicating with my boss and underlings. And I don’t understand why art wouldn’t be a consumable product.
The idea isn’t that art can’t be a consumable product.
It’s that it doesn’t necessarily have to be that. That art can exist separately from commodification.
It’s part of a current narrative about the value of art in a world where AI can do art. The poster is implying that art has value outside of money, and to reduce art to “then who will pay the artists” is doing a disservice to the idea of art as a way that humans connect and communicate.
It can be hard to share art online just for the sake of sharing. If your art isn’t “good” by traditional standards, you get unrequested criticism at best and open mockery at worst. If your art is good, the first thing people say is “wow, you should sell this!” (which is not bad if you’re trying to make a living as an artist, but it can be frustrating when you’re just trying to relax by doing something creative.)
As a result, it’s hard for artists of any skill level or style to let themselves create just to create. They feel constant pressure to improve or monetize, and to please others, when really it’s beneficial for all people to just pick up a brush/instrument/camera/etc. and let the creative juices flow.
Just another gatekeeper looking to feel superior to others in whatever small way they can. Art is not one thing or the other. Plenty of people create art to be consumed, and plenty create art for their own expression. Sometimes people even do one and then the other.
I feel personally attacked by this. I’m very good at communicating with my boss and underlings. And I don’t understand why art wouldn’t be a consumable product.
The idea isn’t that art can’t be a consumable product.
It’s that it doesn’t necessarily have to be that. That art can exist separately from commodification.
It’s part of a current narrative about the value of art in a world where AI can do art. The poster is implying that art has value outside of money, and to reduce art to “then who will pay the artists” is doing a disservice to the idea of art as a way that humans connect and communicate.
Its also about people turning everything into side hustles.
It can be hard to share art online just for the sake of sharing. If your art isn’t “good” by traditional standards, you get unrequested criticism at best and open mockery at worst. If your art is good, the first thing people say is “wow, you should sell this!” (which is not bad if you’re trying to make a living as an artist, but it can be frustrating when you’re just trying to relax by doing something creative.)
As a result, it’s hard for artists of any skill level or style to let themselves create just to create. They feel constant pressure to improve or monetize, and to please others, when really it’s beneficial for all people to just pick up a brush/instrument/camera/etc. and let the creative juices flow.
The neat part of art is you can think about it however you like, so long as you allow others the same privilige
deleted by creator
Just another gatekeeper looking to feel superior to others in whatever small way they can. Art is not one thing or the other. Plenty of people create art to be consumed, and plenty create art for their own expression. Sometimes people even do one and then the other.
How are they gatekeeping when they are calling out gatekeepers? “Sorry for whoever thinks that art is just…”
I guess the tweets a response to those that equate the value of an art piece to its financial valuation?