The art world really bothers me. Every artist I know (successful or otherwise) admits that success at art is essentially a popularity contest.
Art has been transformed from something that attempts to convey meaning and emotion, despite subjectivity and reliance on shared language specific to one's own culture, to a fetishization of an artwork's background narrative. ie the process (this particular painting of a square, that looks like every other uniform square painting, was done by doing xyz therefore it's different) and background story of the artist or artwork (this one was painted by a blind nun from some oppressed country). The artwork itself is meaningless save for the narrative surrounding it. It's impossible to understand or experience anything when looking at the artwork, but the background text next to it elucidates the narrative.
That's why "outsider art" is hilarious to me. In many cases it's totally accidental art, or a pisstake: see, comedy shows bringing random objects, like dustbins or fire hydrants, into galleries.. cue dozens of thoughtful onlookers - or even unrepentant shit. But the fetishization of narrative elevates it to mainstream acceptance (despite the artist not being in the cool kids' club). And conversely, in other cases, outsiders are the only ones actually making art in the first place, because everyone else on the inside is too busy trying to score it big by adhering to trends.
I think the only difference between "then" and "now" is that "back then" you had to have some kind of mechanical, technical skill, like sculpting or painting. Now (1950s-present), anyone can do anything and call it "art". Without any kind of technical merit to separate "great", "good", "mediocre", and "bad", what do you have left but self-reinforcing popularity?
Consider outsider music. It's outsider because it weird and usually lacks something in execution, e.g. recording quality.
I have heard it being explained as invention of photography necessitated a different approach to art. As realism was no longer only possible through an artist they had to go in a different direction. Impressionism, which can perhaps be regarded as the first major artistic movement that tried to move away from realism, also began around the invention of camera.
Why can't that "different approach" be simply painting (realistically) things that don't exist?
For example:
Pictures of something that existed in the past, but was destroyed. Or someone who died. Or a younger portrait of someone.
Pictures that differ from reality, such as putting together two famous buildings that actually exist in different cities, near-equator stuff covered by snow, scenes containing objects with incorrect size... Or impossible structures, like Escher did, only more realistically.
Science fiction, fantasy, fairy tales...
Painting a "realistic" dragon requires skills, and cannot be replaced by photography. Why don't modern artists show their skills at this?
Pierre Bourdieu does as decent job as any in breaking down the social topology of class, but his legacy is fraught with his failure to sufficiently account for many economic phenomena that are constantly becoming more clear. It’s hard to elaborat on these in short. The case study of outsider art is a useful case study both in defense of and in objection to Bourdieu’s comprehensions of social class.
The insistence on a distinction so classist as “outsider art” is just another shameful depravity in the name of maintaining a VIP zone for the bourgeois in a world of mass media. Let’s remember “the art world” didn’t exist until the 90s.
Art theory and psychology also frequently connect outsider art to mental illness, which doesn't really help the associated stigma and consequent classism. Rather, it tends to more tightly bind the two together, by creating an implicit relation, which persists in the collective cultural consciousness.
This clearly will affect an artist's perception of themselves depending on what level of success they obtain for themselves.
Source: a self professed, so called 'tortured artist'. Unsuccessful in the arts by choice, but still affected by the stigma as a computer scientist. Change culture: solve problems -> make more of them.
The term refers to people who don't try to get into the art world in-group but still create interesting things, so "outsider" is an accurate and literal description of their status. However the in-group is uncomfortable with consciously engaging with this dynamic and the dysfunction it points to, so engages in a little double-think and invents more palatable justifications for using the term "outsider".
The idea of ignoring in-group games of meaning and status, instead creating works entirely from playful self-expression, is so alien it is best left outside.
Ha, I've been subscribed to Wendy Vainity's YouTube channel for years. I had no idea anybody else gave a fuck, I just thought it was genuinely weird stuff. I'm not even sure how I came across it.
I was invited to exhibit in an outsider art gallery many years ago and declined, because I would not settle for less than full credibility.
The semi-inclusion by "relegating these creators to special art ghetto" is just a sort of aquarium to interact with selected, but not accepted artists, to be ogled in their foreignness and endowed with platitudes of "how creative they are".
Outsider artists should all be given a stipend for materials on the completion of their 100th piece, at which point it just comes back to the basic income discussion.
I'm no tax expert, and it's certainly counter to current political powers at nearly every level of government, but if one looks at inputs into a robot's operating costs as income, and taxes the operator as an employer obligated to pay their share of income and FICA taxes, we could likely see higher long-term employment and training of workers as well as continued solvency for social safety net programs.
Edit: Of course, at some uncalculated cost to high-growth innovation investment opportunities. Because greater-good is a tricky balance.
Edit: My original answer was unclear and too brief for someone.
A clearer answer is that outsider artists, as generally identified by profound social marginalization, typically resulting from mental illnesses, are statistically almost never able to support themselves on art-making.
Programs exist for the mentally ill, yet it would be a hard case to make that these are sufficient for creating quality of life such that everyone suffering in that category, and who would rather be making art as a primary occupation, can support themselves and live independently (provided that is a goal) on art making income.
But like many causes, money for this cause is harder to come by than it could be in the wealthiest nation in the world.
Extracting money, not currently available, from the least creative of workers to support creative work and fulfilling lives for "outsider artists" and all others on the margins of the modern economy seems to me a kind of fair play.
I can't understand most of it, to be honest. My perspective is art can sometimes take centuries to make sense from the creator to the person that it's right for, so it doesn't make sense to expect a functioning, mechanized economy to provide for it.
That's the point of art. To tell an idea to someone who needs it. If you tax it and expect it to work like everything else does, it can't do that.
> That's the point of art. To tell an idea to someone who needs it.
Maybe for some people, but art for me has always been about expressing myself. I've never created anything for someone else's enjoyment. If someone happens to enjoy it, okay then, but it's my feelings on the canvas, not my interpretation of what you need to see on the canvas.
Your trouble understanding may be that my phrase in the original post "a stipend for materials" really isn't saying what I meant to say, which in fact is simply "a stipend."
My trouble stems from your judgement of art you don't seem actively involved in creating, therefore, art you don't understand. I assume you aren't involved in creating it because you are very negative about it. That said, if you want to create it, being able to find resources to create it can continuously be a challenging problem, and this is especially difficult if that's what your survival depends on.
Very few people who would be artists make any money at it. I am one of them. You have gotten me almost entirely wrong. I'm sure for your own reasons, but it's gotten insulting.
> The last piece of art I made was a picture of a body that was supposed to be me understanding myself.
I hope you didn't kill somebody and photograph them, but it's not entirely clear you aren't a serial killer from your description, and I thought I'd just put this here in case anything happens to me.
Again, you read me wrong. We have a lot more in common than you seem to think.
No, I just had an eating disorder, which could have killed me, but didn't. Art, yay. Starving tortured artist, intentionally? I don't know, honestly.
My apologies if I read you wrong, that was not my intention. Words like robot to describe artists, mental illness, disenfranchisement, etc. Connections. We all have buttons. Easier to just call it aspergers.
Yes, I project my own issues frequently because I've explained my art to psychologists, counselors and therapists to the point that I realised all my art was doing was trying to explain my feelings to people around me about my mental illness everyone else thought I had with them lacking the awareness of realizing how their active involvement in all of that affected me mentally. I just assumed they understood and still cared about me, which they do.
Now (just kidding, I have always done this) I take my dumb dumb issues out on the internet at strangers based on the salience of their perspectives which seems to be diametrically opposite to the conclusions I've come to, clearly this is a selection bias in information and I'm making too many assumptions about you.
The last piece of art I made was a picture of a body that was supposed to be me understanding myself. Clearly this has been challenging for me as I find myself completely unable to create new art, besides code, which requires me to think clearly and logically and simply about everything.
Not to mention the consequences of how understanding myself may affect others. Having empathy for the feelings of those around you is really hard when you have to think about yourself first.
Obviously I am terrible at doing this on the internet because I don't know who I'm talking to. We all project our issues through our personal experiences and beliefs we hold onto. Sometimes that changes my mind, sometimes it changes yours. Art, everything, yay, the world is still boring because I am a boring person with no magic or mystery in my life, sparse connections that bind me to individuals through concrete understandings.
I don't need to RTFA. There don't have to be rules on the internet. If I need to RTFA you need to read everything that came before the article that created the article. But you don't, because you are replying to the article, and the author may be here, but you wouldn't be aware of that, so you operate on the assumption that you don't have to read everything that led up to the article, just the article itself, perpetuating dogmatic ideologies that secure your world view.
That's insulting to me, so sorry! I have opinions on stuff sometimes!
Some people have talent and aren't as lucky as you. Don't squash them like bugs just because its disruptive. Maybe you need therapy.
Given the beat-up that postmodernism has been given in recent years, its kind of interesting to see that discussions that rest on some key postmodern ideas continue to be relevant.
I think the key takeaway, if any from postmodernism, is that categorisations are never as objective as we'd like. Language is made up, and the points don't matter.
The art world really bothers me. Every artist I know (successful or otherwise) admits that success at art is essentially a popularity contest.
Art has been transformed from something that attempts to convey meaning and emotion, despite subjectivity and reliance on shared language specific to one's own culture, to a fetishization of an artwork's background narrative. ie the process (this particular painting of a square, that looks like every other uniform square painting, was done by doing xyz therefore it's different) and background story of the artist or artwork (this one was painted by a blind nun from some oppressed country). The artwork itself is meaningless save for the narrative surrounding it. It's impossible to understand or experience anything when looking at the artwork, but the background text next to it elucidates the narrative.
That's why "outsider art" is hilarious to me. In many cases it's totally accidental art, or a pisstake: see, comedy shows bringing random objects, like dustbins or fire hydrants, into galleries.. cue dozens of thoughtful onlookers - or even unrepentant shit. But the fetishization of narrative elevates it to mainstream acceptance (despite the artist not being in the cool kids' club). And conversely, in other cases, outsiders are the only ones actually making art in the first place, because everyone else on the inside is too busy trying to score it big by adhering to trends.
I think the only difference between "then" and "now" is that "back then" you had to have some kind of mechanical, technical skill, like sculpting or painting. Now (1950s-present), anyone can do anything and call it "art". Without any kind of technical merit to separate "great", "good", "mediocre", and "bad", what do you have left but self-reinforcing popularity?
Consider outsider music. It's outsider because it weird and usually lacks something in execution, e.g. recording quality.
I have heard it being explained as invention of photography necessitated a different approach to art. As realism was no longer only possible through an artist they had to go in a different direction. Impressionism, which can perhaps be regarded as the first major artistic movement that tried to move away from realism, also began around the invention of camera.
Why can't that "different approach" be simply painting (realistically) things that don't exist?
For example:
Pictures of something that existed in the past, but was destroyed. Or someone who died. Or a younger portrait of someone.
Pictures that differ from reality, such as putting together two famous buildings that actually exist in different cities, near-equator stuff covered by snow, scenes containing objects with incorrect size... Or impossible structures, like Escher did, only more realistically.
Science fiction, fantasy, fairy tales...
Painting a "realistic" dragon requires skills, and cannot be replaced by photography. Why don't modern artists show their skills at this?
Maybe reinforces your point, but many types of jazz music can be quite 'outsider' for most people, despite the usually excellent execution.
Answer: class
Pierre Bourdieu does as decent job as any in breaking down the social topology of class, but his legacy is fraught with his failure to sufficiently account for many economic phenomena that are constantly becoming more clear. It’s hard to elaborat on these in short. The case study of outsider art is a useful case study both in defense of and in objection to Bourdieu’s comprehensions of social class.
The insistence on a distinction so classist as “outsider art” is just another shameful depravity in the name of maintaining a VIP zone for the bourgeois in a world of mass media. Let’s remember “the art world” didn’t exist until the 90s.
Art theory and psychology also frequently connect outsider art to mental illness, which doesn't really help the associated stigma and consequent classism. Rather, it tends to more tightly bind the two together, by creating an implicit relation, which persists in the collective cultural consciousness.
This clearly will affect an artist's perception of themselves depending on what level of success they obtain for themselves.
Source: a self professed, so called 'tortured artist'. Unsuccessful in the arts by choice, but still affected by the stigma as a computer scientist. Change culture: solve problems -> make more of them.
For real! This part is so gross! Glad you added this point.
Considering the ugliness espoused by "The Art World," I can't imagine that any true artist would want to be anything other than an "Outsider Artist."
Yeah but that leaves a prime spotlight available in non outsider art....
Always a fun watch: “Mom and Pop Art,” in which Homer Simpson bcomes an outsider artist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mom_and_Pop_Art
The term refers to people who don't try to get into the art world in-group but still create interesting things, so "outsider" is an accurate and literal description of their status. However the in-group is uncomfortable with consciously engaging with this dynamic and the dysfunction it points to, so engages in a little double-think and invents more palatable justifications for using the term "outsider".
The idea of ignoring in-group games of meaning and status, instead creating works entirely from playful self-expression, is so alien it is best left outside.
Ha, I've been subscribed to Wendy Vainity's YouTube channel for years. I had no idea anybody else gave a fuck, I just thought it was genuinely weird stuff. I'm not even sure how I came across it.
I was invited to exhibit in an outsider art gallery many years ago and declined, because I would not settle for less than full credibility.
The semi-inclusion by "relegating these creators to special art ghetto" is just a sort of aquarium to interact with selected, but not accepted artists, to be ogled in their foreignness and endowed with platitudes of "how creative they are".
Outsider artists should all be given a stipend for materials on the completion of their 100th piece, at which point it just comes back to the basic income discussion.
Tax the robots.
Could you elaborate on the "Tax the robots." bit? I am welcoming to the idea and curious what you mean in this case.
I'm no tax expert, and it's certainly counter to current political powers at nearly every level of government, but if one looks at inputs into a robot's operating costs as income, and taxes the operator as an employer obligated to pay their share of income and FICA taxes, we could likely see higher long-term employment and training of workers as well as continued solvency for social safety net programs.
Edit: Of course, at some uncalculated cost to high-growth innovation investment opportunities. Because greater-good is a tricky balance.
What do robots have to do with outsider artists?
Finding money to support the disenfranchised.
Edit: My original answer was unclear and too brief for someone.
A clearer answer is that outsider artists, as generally identified by profound social marginalization, typically resulting from mental illnesses, are statistically almost never able to support themselves on art-making.
Programs exist for the mentally ill, yet it would be a hard case to make that these are sufficient for creating quality of life such that everyone suffering in that category, and who would rather be making art as a primary occupation, can support themselves and live independently (provided that is a goal) on art making income.
But like many causes, money for this cause is harder to come by than it could be in the wealthiest nation in the world.
Extracting money, not currently available, from the least creative of workers to support creative work and fulfilling lives for "outsider artists" and all others on the margins of the modern economy seems to me a kind of fair play.
This is a bad thing for art?
This is not achieved by the rare "outsider art" sale. I'm not sure why you have a problem with my original post, or if you even read it.
I can't understand most of it, to be honest. My perspective is art can sometimes take centuries to make sense from the creator to the person that it's right for, so it doesn't make sense to expect a functioning, mechanized economy to provide for it.
That's the point of art. To tell an idea to someone who needs it. If you tax it and expect it to work like everything else does, it can't do that.
> That's the point of art. To tell an idea to someone who needs it.
Maybe for some people, but art for me has always been about expressing myself. I've never created anything for someone else's enjoyment. If someone happens to enjoy it, okay then, but it's my feelings on the canvas, not my interpretation of what you need to see on the canvas.
I understand that sentiment. I also understand the other.
Your trouble understanding may be that my phrase in the original post "a stipend for materials" really isn't saying what I meant to say, which in fact is simply "a stipend."
But it's too late for me to edit now.
My trouble stems from your judgement of art you don't seem actively involved in creating, therefore, art you don't understand. I assume you aren't involved in creating it because you are very negative about it. That said, if you want to create it, being able to find resources to create it can continuously be a challenging problem, and this is especially difficult if that's what your survival depends on.
Very few people who would be artists make any money at it. I am one of them. You have gotten me almost entirely wrong. I'm sure for your own reasons, but it's gotten insulting.
Edit: Removed "RTFA"
@s-shellfish, In a sibling reply here, you wrote:
> The last piece of art I made was a picture of a body that was supposed to be me understanding myself.
I hope you didn't kill somebody and photograph them, but it's not entirely clear you aren't a serial killer from your description, and I thought I'd just put this here in case anything happens to me. Again, you read me wrong. We have a lot more in common than you seem to think.
No, I just had an eating disorder, which could have killed me, but didn't. Art, yay. Starving tortured artist, intentionally? I don't know, honestly.
My apologies if I read you wrong, that was not my intention. Words like robot to describe artists, mental illness, disenfranchisement, etc. Connections. We all have buttons. Easier to just call it aspergers.
Yes, I project my own issues frequently because I've explained my art to psychologists, counselors and therapists to the point that I realised all my art was doing was trying to explain my feelings to people around me about my mental illness everyone else thought I had with them lacking the awareness of realizing how their active involvement in all of that affected me mentally. I just assumed they understood and still cared about me, which they do.
Now (just kidding, I have always done this) I take my dumb dumb issues out on the internet at strangers based on the salience of their perspectives which seems to be diametrically opposite to the conclusions I've come to, clearly this is a selection bias in information and I'm making too many assumptions about you.
The last piece of art I made was a picture of a body that was supposed to be me understanding myself. Clearly this has been challenging for me as I find myself completely unable to create new art, besides code, which requires me to think clearly and logically and simply about everything.
Not to mention the consequences of how understanding myself may affect others. Having empathy for the feelings of those around you is really hard when you have to think about yourself first.
Obviously I am terrible at doing this on the internet because I don't know who I'm talking to. We all project our issues through our personal experiences and beliefs we hold onto. Sometimes that changes my mind, sometimes it changes yours. Art, everything, yay, the world is still boring because I am a boring person with no magic or mystery in my life, sparse connections that bind me to individuals through concrete understandings.
I don't need to RTFA. There don't have to be rules on the internet. If I need to RTFA you need to read everything that came before the article that created the article. But you don't, because you are replying to the article, and the author may be here, but you wouldn't be aware of that, so you operate on the assumption that you don't have to read everything that led up to the article, just the article itself, perpetuating dogmatic ideologies that secure your world view.
That's insulting to me, so sorry! I have opinions on stuff sometimes!
Some people have talent and aren't as lucky as you. Don't squash them like bugs just because its disruptive. Maybe you need therapy.
Wyatt Cenac has a good piece on culture clash.
Given the beat-up that postmodernism has been given in recent years, its kind of interesting to see that discussions that rest on some key postmodern ideas continue to be relevant.
I think the key takeaway, if any from postmodernism, is that categorisations are never as objective as we'd like. Language is made up, and the points don't matter.
What even is art?
Art is whatever people say it is.
Does anyone know what software she uses to make these videos? The one mapping her talking and the overall 3d rendering software?
Her channel intro video has some named in the description:
> my favourite software is Carrara by DAZ 3D. I also use Poser7 from Smithmicro/content paradise and iClone from Reallusion
thanks!