>>3913989>Wow great argument. So eloquent.That's kind of the point. Florid rhetoric and talking about the 'traversing the realm of the purely subjective' might have a place, but I feel like the OP uses twice as many words to say half as much. Apologies if I didn't try and craft my obviously lay critique in a way that was more 'eloquent'.
>what is fine art school?In 2021 more people have means and availability to go to art schools. . Sure the modern art schools may not have 'trustworthy and honest higher authorities' but that starts stepping into snooty and high falutin academic talk.
>You have serious reading comprehension issues man. He said it was cyclical and confined to distinct erasI'll just quote (emphasis added):
>The issue we face in our CONTEMPORARY PERIOD is lack of proper guidance and feedback...for young artists and creators...>The few that can will, LIKE MANY OTHER AGES, most likely go unnoticed From my unenlightened eyes it seems like OP was trying to make some scathing critique that it was hard(er?) to make art in a modern, hollow and vapid landscape. I'm saying I don't buy it.
Or was his thesis that 'real artists' are always neglected by the popular culture of the day? There might be some truth to that but it didn't need a 1000 word essay talking about the 'dominant cultural apparatus' and other dross.
In a world where children no longer have to work and have access to unlimited knowledge and means, I would say that artistry and creativity is exploding. I disagree that:
>the actual amount of contemporary work being put out...is stupefyingly low, almost non-existent. We are living in a world were young people can make a living off being creative. OP mentions 'third-party corporate interests' directing the kind of art they make, but is this new? Was the Sistine Chapel not a commissioned work? Haven't artists, like many other callings, had to find ways to make bread?
