Yeah, I couldn’t ever give a fuck. Gurantee there were other just as interesting artists in Van Goghs time that didnt get the same arbitrary appeal he did.
Right, also many of these famous artists existed only with the financial support of their friends and family and/or died penniless never having actually labored. Like that should be a deafening statement but no.
Or another angle
Dalis father was a lawyer and was a fascist
Stravinsky was born from elites and was a known Mussolini supporter lol, having the opinion that only individuals can create great art puts you in bed with fucking absolute shitheads and rich kids.
The truth is ANYBODY can make GREAT art if given the chance to really pursue it. Museums are kind of against that idea and enshrine a bunch of bulllllshit
The truth is ANYBODY can make GREAT art if given the chance to really pursue it. Museums are kind of against that idea and enshrine a bunch of bulllllshit
You kind of hit on something I’ve been thinking about, that especially with modern tools there are countless artists today who in terms of sheer technical ability far outstrip any of the old artists still celebrated as geniuses or masters, to the extent that “being good at art” is devalued and most have to make a living the same way as most historical artists: by doing vapid commissions for people with money to throw at them. Maybe the number who could have picked up and worked with the cruder and shittier tools available in the past is much lower, because that requires a different level of dedication and entails learning a different set of skills and techniques, but tools are such a quintessential part of human labor that “ah but what if your tools sucked, like they were the absolute worst, and cost ten times as much despite being awful, where would you be then?” is kind of a copout.
Although that said, I also think old art is something to be preserved for its historical value just because it’s a physical chunk of human culture that’s survived to the modern day. It has a sort of value to it that’s distinct from its literal quality or the ethics of its creation, like how ancient Roman statues and mosaics and the like were all mass-produced trash (mosaics especially: there objectively were good works of art by skilled artisans in that time period, and there are mountains of half-assed standard-template pieces that still got fucked up by being done haphazardly and cheaply by the contractors that put them in) made at the demand of a class of idle slavers in an incredibly vile, chauvinist culture, but the bits and pieces that have survived to this day are still valuable artifacts because they’re a glimpse of human history.
Van Gogh was poor his entire life and wasn’t well known at all until well after his death, I get the feeling yall just assumed he was bourgeois because his art is acclaimed now. weird take in context
He would of been on the streets if he wasnt being financially supported by his brother his entire life. He could have gotten a job or something to support himself.
And were saying that there are plenty of artists who were doing interesting stuff at the same time who likely just fell to the wayside of history or are somewhat known but over shadowed by the modern capitalist context where van gogh paintings are millions of dollars for no real reason
Likewise i feel like socialist who support this exceptionalism in the arts are just afraid that their consumer habits and taste are being questioned, my position ameliorates this anxiety because you see tastemakers for what they are and can form your own true understanding of art history/art taste
