You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context

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

permalink
report
parent
reply

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

permalink
report
parent
reply

He would of been on the streets if he wasnt being financially supported by his brother his entire life.

Not to say Van Gogh is of equal value politically (lol), but you could say this about Marx with Engels. It’s not a bad thing that an artist was supported, or that because of that his work should be ignored or destroyed (not that you you claimed that necessarily). Ideally, many more could have been in his same situation, but that’s not possible to change retroactively.

I don’t see why it’s “exceptionalism” to want his work to be respected, I wouldn’t want much less famous pieces of art tarnished either.

Also, if you want other artists to have had the opportunity for recognition, saying Van Gogh should have “gotten a job or something to support himself” is pretty weird. You don’t think there were artists with great potential who could not develop it or produce enough notable work exactly because they needed to work some shitty job instead? That’s like the exact opposite prescription for wanting more artists to make great work and get recognition and acclaim. Not sure what you want really

permalink
report
parent
reply
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

I feel like all people can make great work, ideally it should be normal to make great work to the point that there’s no reason to have recognition and acclaim. I believe that that world exists. Ideally art should only have importance to the community around that artist.

I feel like the enshrinement of certain artists works against that idea and also works against the recognition of “lesser” artists because it’s not the enshrined artist.

I think this kind of thinking leads to preserving the world as we know it.

I dont think having a job actually prevents great art. I think bad formative education and destroyed communities does.

On that note, why would someone have to work in a mine while someone else would get to make all day long? Doesn’t seem fair that one person gets to explore an entire microcosm to its fullest, go on this intense spiritual journey and develop their highly personal craft while one person toils in a mine. I feel like the idea of not having a job and just being an artist doesn’t add up to a fair of a society.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

Fair enough, but I don’t see why art isn’t worth preserving just because it’s bourgeois. There’s cultural and historical value to preserving works by bourgeois types, works made by patronized people under feudalism, and so on.

permalink
report
parent
reply