Do you personally think a work of art is truly still "art" if its obvious that the artist created their art with money or some other incentive/ulterior motive on their mind?

Is formulaic "art" an oxymoron?

Whether its music, movies, tv shows, literature whatever

Inspired by the Martin Scorsese "Marvel films aren't cinema" thread/topic

Yeah, but it's just probably s***tier

you answered your own question in the title

yes. it takes a great artist to get hit after hit for 10 years straight. even if it’s for money, their skill at creating accessible art can’t be denied

yeah it's still art. it's just art with an ulterior motive. you can make your judgements all you want but what they made is still essentially art

Art has nothing to do with quality and originality and being an artist is a job they need to eat too

i mean depends on the situation tbh
some artists might be really really broke and just need the cash before they can properly form their vision and build.
but some are def just out for the money and it shows

Yes

But because of artistic movements in the 19th and 20th century, society has been conditioned to think that great or "true" art = "selfless" art, aka art created without desire for material things (which is seen as impure, ie this thread's existence)

The intent behind art's creation doesn't make it less art, it's just different. But a lot of the time art made solely for the purpose of money will be s*** (that's not to say art made without money in mind can't be s*** either tho).

It's all about the skill of the artist at the end of the day

This thread is art

Everything is art tbh. It seems silly to draw the line somewhere

yes it’s art even back in the day niggas like Steve Jobs and Leonardo Da Vinci would sell their art for money. What a dumb thread

OPs mama only uses her p**** for making money

But that s*** still a work of art

You're wrong

Create a hit rn and see how easy it is then

you’re a fool

you legit have Bob Marley as ur avi stfu and get off the internet

1. That wasn't my point
2. Those same artists are not doing it themself
3. You have to be trend hopping to do that which defeats the purpose of art
4. A hit does not means its quality or will stand the test of time which is what separates great art from good/mediocre art

Depends on the result.

Bruh that's not...

Okay then

I will never speak to you about music off that stupid ass statement

Everything is art. But theres bad art and good art. news.artnet.com/art-world/kanye-west-tweets-contemporary-art-450827 You decide.

.....

I think art that is for nothing other than its ability to make money is not true art. If something is made with the primary purpose of making a profit, the creator is not making art. They are making money. Art is not for money. Art is inherently focused around some form of expression. A movie that takes no artistic risks or innovations and has the primary purpose of making money is not art. It is akin to an amusement park ride. Which is also not art. Sure it can make you feel something, but it is not art.

And what's wrong with Bob Marley tho

relax i made a mistake my point still stands, get off the internet or i will hurt ur mother