Nov 7, 2019·editedArtists have always created to make money and sustain themselves so yeah, it's still art
OPNov 7, 2019
Water GiverThis thread is art
Nov 7, 2019Water GiverThis thread is art
real
Nov 7, 2019·1 replyDeathit’s not the 1600s. art has been redefined so much that it’s dumb to try to declare something can or can’t be art
Not sure how u drew that out of what i said.
Im not putting a defn on art im leaving it open.- Nov 7, 2019·1 replyDankmustard Mobile
Not sure how u drew that out of what i said.
Im not putting a defn on art im leaving it open.you defined art as something that makes you feel
that’s definitely a limited way to think of it
Nov 7, 2019
BRAVEYes
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
Facts some of the greatest art of all time was done explicitly for a patron/their fee
Nov 7, 2019see finally rich by chief keef
FREE 💜Nov 7, 2019Yes
- FREE 💜Nov 7, 2019
Juicy by Biggie is art and it was done for the express point of making a hit.
Nessy 🦎Nov 7, 2019·1 replyDeathit’s not the 1600s. art has been redefined so much that it’s dumb to try to declare something can or can’t be art
funny cause art in the 1600s was primarily made for money
rvi 🐸Nov 7, 2019·1 reply
AphroditeBecause there is criteria that makes an artist/good art. Just creating something is not art. Do you see acts like Ariana grande or one direction as art?
yeah
do you see later era disco Bee Gees as "not art" because they sold out?
Nov 7, 2019Deathyes. 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
Nov 7, 2019
halfmysightI 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.
Nov 7, 2019Nope that’s why marvel movies suck ass 🙂
Nov 7, 2019I feel like art deep down has always been about ego. Self expression is obviously the most important aspect but ....
- Nov 7, 2019Death
you defined art as something that makes you feel
that’s definitely a limited way to think of it
Exactly, everyone feels things differently, some may not feel anything at all. But each others subjective opinions dont define whether or not its art.
Back to my point, if an artist is creating art (for people to feel) with money in mind that isn’t always a bad thing.
If they’re chasing fast money, then yea definitely.
- Nov 7, 2019·editedrvi
yeah
do you see later era disco Bee Gees as "not art" because they sold out?
It seems interesting when that happens. I'd just call The Bee Gees true artists that wanted to make money so they did, not someone who wanted to make money so they attempted art.
So I'd consider what they did art
Nov 7, 2019literally everything is art, you can never give concrete definitions because you can always find exceptions
- Nov 7, 2019·1 replyAphrodite
Because there is criteria that makes an artist/good art. Just creating something is not art. Do you see acts like Ariana grande or one direction as art?
what exactly is that criteria?
- Nov 7, 2019Nessy
funny cause art in the 1600s was primarily made for money
isn’t that the point of the thread
Nov 7, 2019There’s fast food and then there’s culinary food.
There’s your answer, just apply it to the other art forms
Hi-C 🦌Nov 7, 2019Something that is artistic shouldn't matter what the intent behind it is. Plenty of artists make "art" that is intended to move people that is s***ty as f***. Does that put it above other art that is intended to make money but is objectively better? Of course not.
Nov 7, 2019just admit you hate drake
- Nov 7, 2019·edited·1 replyNotmyfirst
what exactly is that criteria?
Inspiration,passion,talent, skill, and vision
The first 3 are subjective, abstract and indirect