a few big artists, who ironically aren’t necessarily even that good.
I get your point and all, but I just had to ask - how do you define and separate ‘good’ from ‘bad’ art, though?
I agree with you though, the traditional art world is no different from any other industry under capitalism. It’s filled with sharks, ass kissing and networking. Most either come from fame, and/or from a wealthy family who’s willing to support them. It’s more important to be a driven entrepreneur with good social skills and the right connections, than an artist.
how do you define and separate ‘good’ from ‘bad’ art, though?
It’s partly subjective. Think the quality of the craftsmanship. For example, for paintings, whether the perspective makes sense. Or the shading. Or in literature, whether the story in internally consistent (I think the term is verisimilitude). Of course, all rules have exceptions.
I get your point and all, but I just had to ask - how do you define and separate ‘good’ from ‘bad’ art, though?
I agree with you though, the traditional art world is no different from any other industry under capitalism. It’s filled with sharks, ass kissing and networking. Most either come from fame, and/or from a wealthy family who’s willing to support them. It’s more important to be a driven entrepreneur with good social skills and the right connections, than an artist.
It’s partly subjective. Think the quality of the craftsmanship. For example, for paintings, whether the perspective makes sense. Or the shading. Or in literature, whether the story in internally consistent (I think the term is verisimilitude). Of course, all rules have exceptions.
My god, finally. Someone on Lemmy solved the question that has been asked for centuries.