Sometimes I feel like visual art doesn't matter as much today as it did around the turn of the century. The primary visual media people consume today is cinema. Back in the day painting kind of filled that roll. Music is also huge today. Sometimes it feels like 2D is on the way out as something important and regularly viewed by the public. Nobody gives a shit. What do you think?
>The primary visual media people consume today is cinema.
What the fuck kind of question is this?
Are you looking to be some art celebrity and do art for some fame? Fuck off.
>>2374960
He's right though, most people would rather watch a film or listen to music than look at paintings
>>2374925
Do you think there's not a large market/community that enjoys 2d art of all kinds? Are you fucking insane?
Also, why does that matter? I enjoy making 2d artwork. Same with the people here. That's enough motivation for me to make it. Not everything has to be bought and sold to the general public.
What about graphic design? What about comics and animation and manga and hentai and furry porn and rule 34 and advertisements and computer wallpapers and concept art and storyboards and the other ten billion things involving 2d art?
Do you think that humans have somehow evolved out of the desire to view things that are designed to be attractive and evocative and enjoyable?
>>2374996
comics and animation and manga and hentai and furry porn and rule 34 and advertisements and computer wallpapers and concept art and storyboards
I hate all those things, immature, insignificant
>>2375002
Well boo-hoo, Mr. Renaissance. Why don't you contribute some patrician works to us plebeians?
Regardless, personal preference has nothing to do with the OP. I named a few important/relevant/popular things that have to do with 2d artwork, things that many people DO give a shit about, because apparently he wasn't aware that they existed.
>>2375002
okay anon
>>2375002
So you're bitching to hear yourself bitch because your very narrow definition of visual art is less relevant, got it.
music is a FUCKTON more accessible to the average person. than it was before. if you want to see a painting, the best way to see it is in person. okay, so go to the fucking museum. you can listen to music on your phone walking to the car, get in your car, listen the radio, cd, satellite radio, hook device to receiver and listen to whatever, get out of car, go back to listening to music on phone/portable media device while walking into the meuseum. go look at the painting for 5 min. at this point you potentially listened to hours of music simply as a means to keep you entertained while you travel somewhere to experience another art. couple this to fact that music can be experienced with almost EVERYTHING we do and there you go. it could go with chores, fucking, sports, video games etc.
>>2375012
You can look at visual art on the internet :/. 2 seconds
>>2375012
Going to a museum or a gallery is equivalent to going to a concert. Listening to MP3s is about equivalent to browsing tumblr for art.
I agree that actually listening to music is more versatile, though, it's more easily multitasked than viewing art.
>>2375014
there's a pretty large window from says the 50s to the 90s where the internet wasnt big and music was becoming steadily more accessible through personal radios, record players, cassettes, cd players etc. if you wanted to view art you would have to go out of your way during those decades. i think art is making a come back though. just look at all the wine and dine place popping up the last couple years, eventually this will lead to real art
>>2375015
good point on the analogy
>>2374987
Most people would rather have sex with their girlfriend than listen to music a friend recommends.
WHELP GUESS MUSIC SUCKS LOL
kill yourself
>>2374925
what you say is objectively true: people used to line up around the block to see a good painting. Now they watch movies.
But so what? It's not as if there aren't a ton of venues for visual art today. More than in the past, in a lot of ways.
Back when "people lined up to see a good painting", painting was a craft. Technical skill was what mattered the most, and the best ones made a lot of wealth on it. Today, Hollywood definietly is the biggest image producer. But do you really think Mall Cop would be replacing art? Hollywood and art are two separate things. Hollywood is about entertaining the masses and making $$$ while art is about introducing new ideas. I guess people like Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons are a mix of both worlds, but I don't think people enjoy those two anymore? I'm not talking about the people who buy their stuff.
>>2374925
People draw and paint because they want to.
Also, 2D skills actually translate to other fields like CGI modeling and filmmaking.
>>2374925
what the fuck man
>>2374925
I think you're retarded. It's clearly the opposite, as commercial art has never been more popular. It's absolutely everywhere.
If you're thinking about paintings or "high art", then you're also an idiot. It was never meant as entertainment, and never filled the same role. Decoration isn't entertainment.
It's also far more popular today than it was a century ago, when much larger parts of the population belonged to the poorer working class.
