Why isn't ic interested in fine art/contemporary/new stuff? It's just boring classical and illustration. Are there any communities that are more geared towards making it in the fine art world? Or do I just need to move because those kind of people aren't online
>>2312784
The fine art world is pretty fractured I think. There's so many different movements and goals and galleries.
What specifically are you interested in? I bet you can find at least a handful here who also are interested in it.
>>2312791
I'm mainly interested in how the art world is going to change with this generation.
the current trends I see in colleges, art residences, and exhibitions:
Emphasis on installation and performance, conceptual, art thats about thoughts not feelings, interest in philosophy, asking the question "what is art", irony is a big one, long artist statements filled with big academic words, a lot of work that is purposefully mysterious or incomprehensible,
I figure most of those things are going to change.
What do u think?
>>2312784
Because a lot of the "art" we see today requires little to no actual skill to create, just an idea. And while an idea is good and all, there is no way to say "This is good art, this is bad art" since there is no level of skill to judge it on. So you're basically stuck with an art piece where you have to say "WoW aRt is So NicE!" and you're staring at a fuckign dogshit covered with ketchup and put inside a dead cows vagina.
>>2312805
Thinking is a different process than feeling something. When you look at art about an idea like with conceptual art the experience involves understanding something. Classical art tended to focus more on creating a feeling, the experience didn't really involve thinking. I'd like to see things move back in that direction. It seems more genuine, less fabricated.
>>2312798
I mean those things are trending and have been for a while, but at the same time you are getting countertrends where ateliers are popping up everywhere and there is a focus on a more skills-based traditional education.
Then you get people with those skills who are doing some very classical work, and some that are doing very modern work.
And you've also got probably the largest number of plein air painters of all time, and direct painting has largely replaced indirect painting.
There's a lot of things trending because there's just so many goddamn people and access to information now.
kek
>>2312824
That work is horrible tho, great art can still happen. Work inspired by those artist movements is all fine and good but you have to realize that it's all been done and no one will be that interested in something that's over 100 years old.
>>2312829
Everyone look at how terrible contemporary art is right now and see's it as completely disheartening and loose hope. But those people don't have any vision. That's the best time to be here because that means it's ripe for change. When the french academies stagnated, that's when we got impressionism. Right now the art world is bull shit and everyone knows it. The next generation is going to come in and do something exciting.
>>2312837
If someone finds a way to bring real value to digital art then that would probably create a revolution in the art world comparable to that of when oils were introduced.
>>2312843
Value in what way? As in figuring out a new tool to use for art? I don't really get what you mean by value.
>>2312848
Well an original oil painting holds value as it is a unique and original physical thing. A woodblock print holds value for the same reasons, but it is valued considerably less because there are many copies made of it. A digital painting inherently has zero value since it does not exist in a physical unique form, but rather as a digital file of 1s and 0s that can be copied infinite times.
>>2312852
Is commodity really an essential property of art? That doesn't have anything to do with the image, that's just about the money. Art itself has nothing to do with money, it's just used that way. All that matters is the viewers experience of a work. Block prints are less valuable because they aren't nearly as beautiful or dynamic as fully colored oil painting, not because they have multiples. I think taking the commodity out of fine art is a beautiful thing, it makes it less capitalistic, less corrupt. But the reality people will always find a way to turn it into money. Look at street art, it was anti commodity and now that stuff sells for millions.
It's just that there is more to talk about, with representative art you can objectively say what is wrong, what is right, when you improve. When you look at installation, performance, conceptual art you can't really say a lot of things about it, you can't tell what was done right, and what was wrong, threads about it exist but they usually are just image dumps, a handful of anons circle jerking or a fight about wherever the things posted are art or not.
>>2312854
wot
>>2312852
Well I don't think you can make digital art and make it non-copyable. It really can't work, precisely because all digital stuff is a series of 1s and 0s that can always be copied.
I think this problem is the same thing that is the problem with copyright, that is you can't treat a digital object as you would a physical one.
classical art, illustration, representative art discussion
>the perspective is wrong
>nice anatomy
>you need to improve your values
>you are doing symbol drawings
>pretty impressive shading
>the way the foot connects to the ground is weird
Contemporary, modern, abstract art discussion:
>it makes me feel desperate
>it is a allusion to the fall of capitalism
>that blob of paint is a true master piece
>why would someone rub a used tampon on a wall?
>a room filled entirely with umbrellas? brilliant!
That's why
>>2312860
I think it's a part of it for sure. Why does someone pay millions of dollars for an original when you can have a high quality print made that is indistinguishable to 99% of the population?
If intrinsic value of an original were not an issue then digital art already would be ripping through the fine arts scene. It's the more flexible medium of all time, it blends multiple forms of art seamlessly, it allows processes and results impossible in other media, AND it grows as a medium each year as more powerful programs and computers become available. The potential of digital is boundless. But it is not even known to exist by most people in the art world outside of illustration. Because it has no value. Unless that changes it is possible that in the future it will be a footnote in art history books.
>>2312860
Don't delude yourself, they are cheaper because they are less scarce, they are less scarce because they are cheap to mass produce. This is simple economics, the dynamics between scarcity, demand and price.
I think /ic/ would be better served to allow a diversity of artists and their styles to be shown rather than allowing some mod to delete individual threads just because he has complex and dislike for that particular style.
>>2312868
I'm not sure how it will work just yet but digital has to be where it goes.
For one it's by far and away the most flexible and effective medium in history. It tears down all restrictions between different 2d mediums. It's the equivalent leap of moving from charcoal on cave walls to oil painting. There's no comparison. Like I said before, photography and painting aren't two different things anymore. They are all 2d digital art. The culture has already realized this and come to terms with it look on this website, people don't see images through those filters anymore.
Art follows society and culture. We interact with digital 2d images 100x more than we do with analog traditional images today. So traditional is culturally insignificant. It's an art world niche and a delusion at this point.
I know that when you take the commodity out of it you loose some of the material value of a work. I'm not sure how that's going to be solved yet but it's not enough to trump the overwhelming benefits and significance of digital.
>>2312878
Yeah, I think someone will figure it out at some point, but I have no idea at the moment how to bring value to digital. Printing things out doesn't really work and is a bit silly. I guess it's already had its impact in illustration and will continue to do so. But illustration is never accepted by the art world as real art until many decades after the fact. Even though the line between fine art and illustration is very blurred at the moment the old opinions of looking down on illustration still exist.
>>2312784
Are you implying that "fine art/contemporary/new stuff" is NOT boring??
>>2312880
Digital right now = illustration. That makes zero sense and will change.
Printing looks good. But what I think looks better is a gallery filled with large super hi res retina displays. Images look insanely beautiful on my macs screen and they glow! That would cost a lot but I think we'll see galleries start to accommodate digital with those kind of investments in the future. They'll be forced to. It will make for a really amazing gallery experience.
>>2312880
Maybe the patron gets to have their name on it idk
>>2312860
you're right, art is not commodity, that's why there is no such thing as art collector or art dealer or museums or people on patreon making 40k a month... oh, wait.
>>2312894
Art is a commodity but it's not the essential part of art.
It's not the main point of art. The creation of a work followed by the viewers experience is the core. Commodity has nothing to do with that, it doesn't even contribute anything to it.
As an artist the function of commodity is to provide me with the funds to keep making work. I have to have money to fund my business. There has to be a way to inject currency into digital
>>2312886
Printing digital art doesn't look THAT good. It can look alright but looks significantly worse than on a screen.
Mullins himself tried to do a gallery show once with prints of his work and he even was there doing a live demo. It was a total failure.
I know Andrew Jones experimented at one point with things like printing on glass so that light can pass through and it mimics the way a screen produces light. I think he had some success, but I have not heard more on it and that certainly hasn't become a thing.
Even if you could print it perfectly though...then what? It holds no value still. It's no different than a cheap gallery in a shopping center that has prints of kinkaid and shitty cloud paintings.
Displaying them on screens is a bit pointless because you can view it at home the same way.
>>2312867
underrated
>>2312903
Maybe the gallery is going to become less important. Galleries haven't always existed anyway. With new technologies that are going to blur the lines between digital and reality like AR your going to be able to view digital images on a much larger scale without money.
I guess galleries could afford a more comprehensive experience. They would have really big nice screens that you wouldn't have at home and obviously the exhibition opening experience allows you to see the artist and actually engage in the community. In the future that could also become fully or partially digital though as well.
It's all a bit sci fi but go look at microsofts hololens. Reality is going to get surreal in the next 20 years I think.
>>2312913
Fair points. Though I suspect it will take longer than 20 years. Hopefully these shifts will occur within our lifetime.
I think the legitimization of digital art will be fascinating to watch unfold, and art will change forever afterwards.
>>2312922
Digital is here right now, we live in the ideal time. No need to wait. How people view the images in the future and how the art world platform changes isn't our concern. The tools we currently have are more than enough to create masterpieces. We can be the pioneers, the old masters.
>>2312929
That's true. Thought out of everyone today maybe only a handful will be considered a master and have their name remembered. Probably the actual pioneers like Mullins and Sparth. I don't really think any of those asian renderwhores or most of the fantasy art stuff being churned out now is notable or doing things new, it will likely be forgotten once the fad passes.
>>2312937
In my opinion the real significant stuff is going to look more like the culture on 4chan than it will to illustration/realism. Hard to say
what the close-minded people on /ic/ really want is already happening in small communities like The Art Students League and the New York Academy of Art in NYC. There people paint figurative academic portraits that /ic/ badly wants very proficiently. It's been happening for ages.
There is no need for /ic/ or its stinking close-minded opinions to determine the path of art in history.
The people in the academy and the student league actually have talent and substance, as well as dedication and true love for their craft.
People on /ic/ lack such things. Only thing /ic/ is good at is being assholes to people actually trying to get better.
>>2313024
>>2313024
lel
>>2313024
>>2312784
There are good contemporaries, it's just more fun to shit talk the bad ones.
>>2312805
>>2313065
That's not good, it's contrived and vague. I was doing stuff that looked just like that in high school.
>>2313076
http://www.theguardian.com/global/shortcuts/2015/oct/27/modern-art-is-rubbish-why-mistaking-artworks-for-trash-proves-their-worth
>>2313076
That's what we(our generation) has to fix man
>>2313078
Here's your reply
>>2313080
>spend weeks trying to come up with your next big artwork that will make you the talk of the jet-set for weeks to come.
>The evening before the opening the cleaners were told to remove all trash bottles and saw no reason why they didn't mean your masterpiece "Where Shall We Go Dancing Tonight?" that were made by empty bottles glue to a plate on the floor.
Life as a contemporary artist is hard.
>>2313085
weak bro
>>2313090
It wasn't a made up story. Here's another link with it:
http://nypost.com/2015/10/27/modern-art-exhibit-mistaken-for-trash-and-thrown-away/
>>2313134
god stop posting these
>>2312878
>digitalfag detected
Handmade, physical work will always be more respected for one simple reason: you can't ctrl alt delete a painting, sculpture, etc.
>>2313161
When it comes to art I value digital paintings and 3d models higher than physical art. Not only is it a superior medium for communication but even sculptures can be 3d printed these days and art can be printed.
It's like an industrial revolution with blueprints and mass production. Any artist worth their salt would want to push the limits of this new godly tool that paint with light and breaks the boundaries for what is conventional.
>>2313169
>Not only is it a superior medium for communication
>>2313172
Let me guess. You are one of those fags who want to smell a painting and have it hang on your wall while it decays.
>>2313172
>accusing someone of newfaggotry
>posting tumblr.jpg
>>2313093
>thousands of dollars
>>2313176
Let ME guess: you do concept art and are totally blind to the eyerolls when you tell people you're an "artist" who does all of their work on the computer. Lol.
>>2313196
No. I would never call myself an artist (Though others have). I'm a programmer who plays with digital art as a hobby. Been around the globe several time and visited a lot of museums and general been cultural like a respectable citizen. So it's not that I haven't enjoyed traditional art.
I see the future of art as being digital. Even traditional sculpturing and painting will become a step in a process where digitalization is involved if on a professional level. As far as storing information and the potential for manipulating it, computers and as a part of that the internet will become an even more parallel tool, bro.
>>2313221
>I'm a programmer
Yeah, why am I not surprised?
>>2313178
>Being this much of a newfag that he does not realize /ic/ has tumblr sharing threads every week
>>2313235
It's not all bad. If you become famous as a traditional artist you can still once you are dead (dead, so your works value can now be determined by hired pros, a formality) have your art become an investment object rich people to shuffle around with insane amounts for tax advantages. That wont get old.
>>2313255
If I'm dead, then why would I care?
And you don't get it - like other people have said, people are always going to prize something that's one of a kind as opposed to something you printed. Along with that, there's the level of authenticity that will never be match by digital work.
Working with your hands =/= clicking a mouse or drawing on a tablet.
>>2313265
In the future you will not only be able to 3D print sculptures from 3D models but there's also no reason why you couldn't 3D print a painting.
And it's just your arrogance talking when you claim that skill isn't involved in the creation of digital works. And drawing on a tablet is working with your hands. Even how a pro holds a tablet pen to get the most out of it is different to how they hold a regular pen.
>>2313265
Furthermore, your claim that digital media will surpass traditional mediums has been made over and over again.
>synthesizers will make traditional instruments obsolete
Nope.
>Digital camcorders/cameras will kill film
Nope.
Traditional art isn't going anywhere, at least not in our lifetimes.
>>2313271
How daft are you?
me: people are always going to prize something that's one of a kind as opposed to something you printed.
you: In the future you will not only be able to 3D print sculptures from 3D models but there's also no reason why you couldn't 3D print a painting.
>Even how a pro holds a tablet pen to get the most out of it is different to how they hold a regular pen.
You mean clicking on different brush sizes in photoshop is working with your handsl? Photobashing? Being able to add filters/blur/whatever is a skill? Perhaps. But it pales in comparison to traditional artwork.
>>2313273
Digital has taken over from film in both cameras and movies. Yes, you get the rare person who still uses film as a novelty thing or because they are really old, but it has been 99% replaced.
And the influence of digital on music has been profound. Numerous new genres have been created because of it, and it has bled into even the more traditional genres. Plus almost all music is edited in a digital format.
Anyways, I don't think digital art will replace traditional. No more than acrylics replaced oils. But it will be counted as a valid medium and it has a lot more potential as a medium than any other.
>>2313273
>synthesizers will make traditional instruments obsolete
>Nope.
>Digital camcorders/cameras will kill film
>Nope.
Both film and music today is digital and as such have improved a lot as well as the options to create and manipulate it. You can't be a musician or movie maker without distributing your work digitally.
Thanks for providing two nice examples to to underline my point.
>>2313279
>How daft are you?
No way near as much as you from what it looks like.
>>2313282
>I see the future of art as being digital.
>I don't think digital art will replace traditional.
Yeah ok
>>2313283
>It's easier, therefore it's better.
>>2313288
You can have two things coexist you dummy. The electric guitar redefined music as we know it, and it is here to stay. But you still have acoustic guitars.
>>2313290
You understand the world will run out of ink and paper right? Everything will be digital soon
>>2313289
>babby's first strawman
Woah, there. I'm surprised you didn't go for an ad hominem.
Anything but a proper counter argument though, right. That shit's hard.
>>2313293
Have you been sniffing paint again?
>>2313293
>You understand the world will run out of ink and paper right?
When that happens we'll probably have things like running out of drinking water and oxygen to worry about, not art.
>>2313295
Everyone who says barks OOH STRAWMAN OOH AD HOMINEM are pedantic fucks that probably got blasted on the internet and some other dipshit said the same thing. Fuck off. You know that's what you were implying.
>>2313300
Sorry for using a hard word, for you. But when there's a common word for your retardation then why not use it instead of going through the trouble of defining it for you?
>>2312784
I like contemporary art when it shows that a lot of time and effort were put into it. that alone will get me interested into the piece.
Don't see it much anymore.
>>2313161
>traditionalfag detected
no rules, just tools
go paint on cave walls if you carry that much about the process and not the result, the art itself
>>2313384
>no rules, just tools
Not him (in fact I prefer digital despite its inherent worthlessness thanks to its intangibility) but people should feel bad for taking master ppu's quote out of context.
>>2312843
>>2312854
>>2312878
>digital is the future of art
ugh.
If galleries start getting bought by digital painters exhibiting photoshop paintings, I'm burning that shit down.
>>2312886
>But what I think looks better is a gallery filled with large super hi res retina displays.
That is the worst, most cringy hipster shit I have ever heard.
>I think we'll see galleries start to accommodate digital with those kind of investments in the future. They'll be forced to.
No self-respecting gallery would ever choose a digital artist over someone painting in a physical medium. No one wants to buy your shitty concept art jpegs for the "artistic value". You can hope all you want, but it's never going to happen.
I have never seen a digital painting that could match the real thing. Never.
>>2313169
> I value digital paintings and 3d models higher than physical art
I simply don't believe that. You're just saying it to be edgy.
>Not only is it a superior medium for communication
Prove it or kill yourself. Don't say "because easier to share on the internet!!" unless you want to look retarded.
>sculptures can be 3d printed these days and art can be printed.
Essentially ruining the craft of creating things by having a printer doing the physical work for you. Which means that the art loses a whole dimension, and that all artists would work in exactly the same way. Sitting and clicking.
> Any artist worth their salt would want to push the limits of this new godly tool
How can it be a new, godly tool when it compromises heavily on end result quality? Find a way to give a digital painting actual texture. You can't. Find a way to make light reflect off printer ink the same way it would with paint. You can't. It's a huge step backwards. The limits are right in front of me, and can't be pushed any further.
You can become narrow-minded, literally, by only liking certain things, and disliking others. But you can become openminded, literally, by giving up your likes and dislikes and becoming interested in things.
>>2313513
Look up what a moldy fig is. It's what you are.
check it, digital contemporary art. We should post digital fine art more, it doesn't have to just be illustration/concept type stuff.
On /ic/ it's almost always fine arts=traditional illustration=digital. That's an outdated way of thinking.
>people talking about printing stuff
>no embodying the future of virtual reality
oh please
oh please
>>2313543
he's right tho
Reposting this
"I'm not sure how it will work just yet but digital has to be where it goes.
For one it's by far and away the most flexible and effective medium in history. It tears down all restrictions between different 2d mediums. It's the equivalent leap of moving from charcoal on cave walls to oil painting. There's no comparison. Like I said before, photography and painting aren't two different things anymore. They are all 2d digital art. The culture has already realized this and come to terms with it look on this website, people don't see images through those filters anymore.
Art follows society and culture. We interact with digital 2d images 100x more than we do with analog traditional images today. So traditional is culturally insignificant. It's an art world niche and a delusion at this point.
I know that when you take the commodity out of it you loose some of the material value of a work. I'm not sure how that's going to be solved yet but it's not enough to trump the overwhelming benefits and significance of digital."
Basically what your left with is the "texture" of a painting. Does that mean that all the classical oil painters who made glass smooth work and aimed for surface are shit? Gerhardt Richter in interviews is always going on about how he wants his paintings to be perfectly smooth, he's one of if not the best painter in the world right now. Texture is great but it's not a good enough reason.
>>2313630
>>2313630
more like this
btw I can do traditional better than you but I'm not afraid of change
>>2313632
I can smell your butthurt from here.
>>2313633
that took me 10 seconds, that drawing u did took a solid 15-20 minutes
>>2313644
jfc how new are you?
>>2313647
Haha, that is so biased it hurts. Desperately trying to justify the student loan debt, I see.
>>2313647
You may as well put a fedora on that libfag.
>>2313647
/thread
>>2313783
Hahaha. Well done.
>>2313783
>tfw handholdless virgin
This thread turned into an anonymous traditional artist support and hug group.
>>2313647
>An art degree is more respected by society than engineering and science.
>>2313783
Art grants are basically welfare and fine artists are basically trained welfare cheats (lucky for our tax rate most of them don't even get that far). Grants are a concession that society as a whole rejects monkey art; nobody except a few wealthy white collar criminals who need a quick way to launder money or evade taxes could possibly care about Duchamp/Pollock derivative #600000 and the people that aspire to make fine art for a living are perhaps even more delusional than people that want to be professional basketball players or 'hip hop artists'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9skl9nijPM
>>2313783
Where does "disgusting hobbyist" fit into this structure?
>>2314021
Society needs art, it's the record of humanity. Not everyone can do it, it's like basketball or hip hop it requires a lot of dedication. But it can be done.
Of course it doesn't matter because you're not going anywhere with that attitude.
>>2313783
>>2313647
>fine artist
>respected by society
Anon, I have some bad news for you.
Apart from the fine artist's circlejerk, no one's going to give you a single bit of respect. The word Artist generates a lot more hate then the word designer (or concept).
Also since you have the least chance of hitting it big, you won't have many girlfriends either.
>>2313647
can't believe people are falling for this mid-tier bait so hard, christ
>>2314068
Says the IT guy.
>>2313550
He's not though. He's just critiquing one retarded point of view with an equally extreme and retarded point of view.
>>2314222
/ic/ is not a bright place.
but I'm a little surprised too.
Holy fuck you guys still thinks that
nice picture = art, and that art should be appreciated by peasants. Art has no obligation to make you feel good, thats why it' doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing.
>>2314354
>i am completely in the thrall of post-ww1 "artists"
>>2314354
I realize this is bait but I'll respond anyway
Work that's anti aesthetic is boring. It's dominated the art word for over 100 years now. It definitely isn't edgy or progressive anymore. All it does is alienate the public. I don't think we should ever go back to classical realism but making artwork somewhat appealing makes the work more powerful. It's a tool. Look at music, would Illmatic still be as powerful of an album if the flow was sloppy and the production was shit? Art is meant to reflect and validate society, a sculpture of a man shitting or a piece of trash on the floor doesn't do that. It's going to be a record of the pretentious upperclass not a record of the actual people.
>>2312784
/ic/ is artisan oriented, which is not a bad thing. Discussing aesthetics and meaning is more subjective and more likely to turn into stupid internet arguments.
>>2314447
>more likely to turn into stupid internet arguments
>not always happening anyways on the internet on any subject
>>2313343
this is not art. This is "look what I made" level and shouldn't get attention outside of family and close friends.
>>2314447
it is a bad thing, because it breeds homogenity (if that is a word)
/ic/ critique is rule based, and following those rules, everything will end up looking the same and the whole infinite potential of art as expression is reduced to a craft.
>can't critique, not a human head
>can't critique personal style
>can't critique an expression
so in my opinion /ic/ is good for learning drawing figures and perspectives following a strict set of rules. Art as expression has no validity here.
>>2314498
This guy said it right
>>2314498
>reduced to a craft
>reduced
That hits close to home man, drawing and painting is the only thing that I can say I'm good at, even though it's just a hobby. I would kill myself if I couldn't draw glamorous dickgirls and paint merc_wip.jpgs anymore, and I probably still would kill myself if illustration were considered an unenlightened and culturally insignificant craft
Seriously, what's so bad and threatening about the "artisan-oriented" aspect of art compared to art in general/art as expression? Aside from the "homogenity" bullshit, that's a slippery slope and still isn't even necessarily a bad thing. Batik is an artisan craft with a homogenous aesthetic, and it's beautiful.
And /ic/ is the way it is with being about illustration, because most of the folk who end up coming here only come here to improve their illustration skills.
>>2314494
>"look what I made"
So all art.
>>2314433
>th
I'm not saying that art doesn't need skilled execution. But skilled execution does not equal art. Depending on an idea a proper way of execution should be chosen. Sometimes it can be realistic painting sometimes it can be sloppy illustration in MS paint.
As for what is art is, I disagree on your points. Art is going to be reflection of society whether you intend it or not, validation is also unnecessary. All art needs to do is coming up with new connections between ideas that will inspire less artistic branches of society Whether ordinary people will get it or not doesn't make it less of art.
>>2314630
Art isn't a reflection of society innately. I used to paint very realistically in oil that looked very similar to european styles. That has nothing to do with whats happening today. It wasn't good art because it wasn't relevant and more importantly, wasn't authentic. I think conceptual art isn't relevant today either.
>>2314652
It actually does reflect something. It just doesn't reflect anything on its own (as a standalone art piece) because it most definitely didn't brought something new to art, but from historical (and sociological and economical) point of view it definitely says a lot. Be it the fact that traditional skillbased notions of art can and will be always ingrained in society or that the rise of population made skillbased arts too common therefore exhausted.
Art (fine art) will always be niche thing, and as I said art should strive to convey an idea in best way possible, using the best tool artist can find. It can be oils, it can be video, it can be game. It's not about the best technique but about the right technique.
>>2314702
>Art (fine art) will always be niche thing
It never has been niche and thus I have no evidence to support is will become niche now.
>rise of population made skillbased arts too common therefore exhausted
photography did that not a rise in population
>art should strive to convey an idea in best way possible
>best
>It's not about the best technique but about the right technique.
Seems like your making arguments against yourself. This conversation isn't going anywhere I can tell.
>>2314720
>It never has been niche and thus I have no evidence to support is will become niche now.
Art (craft) maybe not, but fine art definitely yes. For example oil painters in medieval ages. Pretty much privileged thing. Nowadays? Plenty of very skilled oil painters.
>photography did that not a rise in population
I am not talking about visual arts only. There was time when pottery was considered art. Then came manufacturing, and only the top best potters can mak it in fine art.
>Seems like your making arguments against yourself. This conversation isn't going anywhere I can tell.
No I am not.
For example hypothetically
You want to create ART piece that conveys horror of war.
A) You would do for example big ass realistic oil painting, a mural of dead civilans.
B) You will recreate a room as battlefield with artificial dad bodies, rotting smell, fire smokes and shit and let people walk through it.
C) You will make childish paintings with wild brush strokes and gruesome figures.
So which one is better art? Rightly educated (meaning audience that bothered to READ artist's explication) should be able to make a judgement which of those art pieces made them feel or think about the horrors of war best. Considering how overplayed the oil painting is, it would probably be B or C (unless you create some cool smart twist in you painting).
>>2314740
sorry I don't feel like writing another response, not worth my time
>>2314740
>bothered to READ artist's explication
you're the problem, that's all I'll say. A nobody
>>2314582
When I say "craft", I'm focusing on the aspect of the word that is something you can do mechanically by following a procedure. Art is creative and innovative, basically the opposite of that.
So I'm not threatened by the "craft" approach, I'm more annoyed with the people that know "the craft" and feel proficient within the rules they've been taught, but when faced with something that can't be interpreted with those rules, they spaz out and deny the validity of the whole thing. I.e they can't critique something, if it doesn't work with their "checklist".
>>2314595
nice extrapolation. too bad my point got lost on the way.
>>2313271
>3D print sculptures from 3D models
this already happens!
>>2313076
I went to a contemporary art "fall exhibit" about a decade ago with my father, and we were both appalled by the degeneracy and complete lack of skill shown in the work there.
There was nothing of value at the entire exhibit. It was just shit.
I kinda wanna go back next year and bring something disgusting, and put it in the corner of one of the rooms and see if people think it's art. Could go back a week later and see if it's still there.
