John Green, in The Anthropocene Reviewed, in his review of the cave paintings at Lascoux, said, "They remind us that the humans of the past were as human as we are. Their hands indistinguishable from ours. These communities hunted and gathered and there were no large caloric surpluses so every healthy person would’ve had to contribute to the acquisition of food and water. And yet somehow, they still made time to create art, almost as if art isn’t optional for humans." I've kept that specific passage tucked closely to my heart through the years.
I saw the Janet Sobel Milky way work in Moma in Jan 2021 and I was mesmerized. It was off the corner of the wall with no one around it. I just looked at it for a good few mins. It was incredible. I could never find a big enough print of the work. It was marvellous.
Thanks for this! I try to tell people you can't tell somebody that something they made isn't art and that they aren't an artist. The only difference between anybody making art versus a professional artist is that they make money from their art. Whether the art is good or not is entirely a matter of opinion and we can't use opinions to make art rules without stifling creativity. I knew so many artists in grade school that quit because our classically trained art teacher didn't think the cartoonish or anime styled works were good enough. Please do not crush anyone's creativity because of your opinions on their work. If you do not like an art piece, please quietly move on and find something you do like. Support and celebrate the artists you do like before they die!
This made me tear up because i have often felt like my art was not good enough because i even though i had some formal art training, i didn't get a degree and make art a specific way to me and my taste that is outside today's cultural norm online. There's such a heavy focus on realism in the online space and when your art looks different than that, it is often not as valued highly because it looks like not as much time or thought went into the piece when that's not the case at all.
2:18 "Being an amateur didn't mean you weren't good enough to be a professional. It meant you just didn't need the money" I think that's an assumption people make over and over again about the word "professional" (which is the other side of the coin): it doesn't mean you're (necessarily) skilled at an occupation, it just means you're paid for it.
The more I think about what art is the more I realise that the idea of what makes for an artist is anyone who creates something. Whether other people admire, enjoy, or value it is beside the point.
I cannot give this enough thumbs up. It is fascinating (and unfortunate) the amount of boxes, divisions, and gates we often erect around things. Yet diversity almost always makes things and life so much more vibrant. Not to mention, too many lines can make us exclude ourselves from the realm of 'artist', keeping our self-expression locked away. (The Art Assignment does wonders to help free us from that grip!) Art is art is art, even when it's not to our own taste, even when we don't understand it, and even when we think the quality could be better (especially in our own artistic endeavours). :)
I have and always will say that if someone makes any art and presents it to the public, they are an artist. Unfortunately, being an artist isn't enough in a world built on capitalism and marketing. You need to "break in" to whatever art industry you're aspiring to or else it will never become a career. Which is a shame, because it limits human life and experience to only that which makes a profit.
To be blatantly honest; the people of people who try to demean others by saying they aren't "real artists" just try to make their own subpar work seem better. I tend to stop considering them as good artists on the spot. If you want to bring subjective standards into judgement; don't be surprised when you don't meet my standards...
This was a great episode! I know Wes Anderson is not for everyone, but one of the shorts in 'The French Dispatch' reeeeally was playing with these ideas... I am guessing some of the artists you brought up were direct inspirations for Benecio del Toro's character with how similar they were. It's a very satirical take on 'what is a real artist' but felt genuinely deep as well.
It's interesting how to concept of "Ameteur" and "Professional" have swapped. Amateurs used to be people that did artwork for the sole purpose of creating artwork, while Professionals were those who did work by commission and under the guidance of a patron. Now, artists who work under patronage or for commercial work are considered amateur and "outsiders", while those who work 'solely for the art' (let's be honest, it's a paycheck) are often touted as the "true" artists.
Seems to me there was a class issue at work too: amateurs were (I assume) the nobility and the upper middle class, while professionals worked for those same people. So by default amateurs got a bit more respect
Strictly speaking, an amateur is someone who may occasionally make some money from their activity but it is not their main income. A "hobbyist". A professional is someone who earns their main income from their profession. In its pure form, the word is not a judgement on quality or competence. It can be said that amateur work is truer than professional work because the professional HAS to do the work in order to live. The amateur does the work for love of the work itself. There is a lot of largely meaningless hype around art. But someone who creates art, whether as a hobby or profession, is an artist. People who admire artistic talent but are unable to create artworks themselves often become art critics. These are the people who are most vocal about what constitutes "real" artists and "real" art.
Before I even watch this, no it's not amateur. It was deliberate thought out and was created as a part of an entire series of work. You can't call that amateur if you make your life's work out of it.
Art is a way of story telling. Think about the cavemen paintings. Think about the Milky Way galaxy when you look at the night sky. Think about the handprint of a baby’s hand on a piece of paper that you have kept for years.
This is getting to the part of art I hate. Critics choose art, not on the art itself, but on the artist. She's not trained, she's an amateur, but his work is brilliant. In my amateur mind, art should be independent of the artist. The emotions I feel are primal, and if art speaks to those urges, then I consider it art. The artist shouldn't be part of the consideration.
I guess that would fit into a video about the influence of technological progress on art, if they'd make one. Though personally I'm not sure there's that much to say about it right now. To me it seems like just a tool, like Photoshop. It makes it easier to make certain kinds of images, at a certain fidelity, but does it make for new art in and of itself?
The worlds greatest art is made by children. Some adults realize this and have tried to copy them but it is nearly impossible for an adult to go back to that joyous state of pure creative genius that only a child can have.
Drip paintings are not amateur or pro art. They aren't art (fine art) at all. They're okay for wallpaper, but they aren't art. Read Ayn Rand along with Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi for a good explanation of their definition of art: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's fundamental values." I would add that with all of abstract expressionism, there's nothing to contemplate. One takes a brief notice and then moves along because there's nothing to give it a meaningful structure. It's the musical equivalent of banging on a keyboard -- just a bunch of random sound. Or of a collection of random words that claims to be a poem.
Hard disagree. I have an abstract drip painting in my room and it’s one of my favorite pieces of art in existence. Pieces like these feel like they’re meant to be lived with. The more you look at them, the more shapes and figures you see. It’s like staring at the clouds- you’ll always see something new.
![Diggy Graves - Red Vineyard [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8Ro085T0mnQ/mqdefault.jpg)
John Green, in The Anthropocene Reviewed, in his review of the cave paintings at Lascoux, said,
"They remind us that the humans of the past were as human as we are. Their hands indistinguishable from ours. These communities hunted and gathered and there were no large caloric surpluses so every healthy person would’ve had to contribute to the acquisition of food and water. And yet somehow, they still made time to create art, almost as if art isn’t optional for humans."
I've kept that specific passage tucked closely to my heart through the years.
I saw the Janet Sobel Milky way work in Moma in Jan 2021 and I was mesmerized. It was off the corner of the wall with no one around it. I just looked at it for a good few mins. It was incredible. I could never find a big enough print of the work. It was marvellous.
I just LOVE this series. I can’t help feeling moved by all these stories of lesser (but definitely no less competent) artists.
+
Thanks for this! I try to tell people you can't tell somebody that something they made isn't art and that they aren't an artist. The only difference between anybody making art versus a professional artist is that they make money from their art. Whether the art is good or not is entirely a matter of opinion and we can't use opinions to make art rules without stifling creativity. I knew so many artists in grade school that quit because our classically trained art teacher didn't think the cartoonish or anime styled works were good enough. Please do not crush anyone's creativity because of your opinions on their work. If you do not like an art piece, please quietly move on and find something you do like. Support and celebrate the artists you do like before they die!
This made me tear up because i have often felt like my art was not good enough because i even though i had some formal art training, i didn't get a degree and make art a specific way to me and my taste that is outside today's cultural norm online. There's such a heavy focus on realism in the online space and when your art looks different than that, it is often not as valued highly because it looks like not as much time or thought went into the piece when that's not the case at all.
2:18 "Being an amateur didn't mean you weren't good enough to be a professional. It meant you just didn't need the money" I think that's an assumption people make over and over again about the word "professional" (which is the other side of the coin): it doesn't mean you're (necessarily) skilled at an occupation, it just means you're paid for it.
The more I think about what art is the more I realise that the idea of what makes for an artist is anyone who creates something. Whether other people admire, enjoy, or value it is beside the point.
I never liked Jackson Pollock's work, but I really like Janet Sobel's.
Sorbel's Milky Way is beautiful.
I cannot give this enough thumbs up. It is fascinating (and unfortunate) the amount of boxes, divisions, and gates we often erect around things. Yet diversity almost always makes things and life so much more vibrant. Not to mention, too many lines can make us exclude ourselves from the realm of 'artist', keeping our self-expression locked away. (The Art Assignment does wonders to help free us from that grip!) Art is art is art, even when it's not to our own taste, even when we don't understand it, and even when we think the quality could be better (especially in our own artistic endeavours). :)
I love this.
Looking forward to it each Thursday.
I have and always will say that if someone makes any art and presents it to the public, they are an artist. Unfortunately, being an artist isn't enough in a world built on capitalism and marketing. You need to "break in" to whatever art industry you're aspiring to or else it will never become a career. Which is a shame, because it limits human life and experience to only that which makes a profit.
To be blatantly honest; the people of people who try to demean others by saying they aren't "real artists" just try to make their own subpar work seem better. I tend to stop considering them as good artists on the spot.
If you want to bring subjective standards into judgement; don't be surprised when you don't meet my standards...
Thank you for these videos.
Your videos are always so informative!
This was a great episode! I know Wes Anderson is not for everyone, but one of the shorts in 'The French Dispatch' reeeeally was playing with these ideas... I am guessing some of the artists you brought up were direct inspirations for Benecio del Toro's character with how similar they were. It's a very satirical take on 'what is a real artist' but felt genuinely deep as well.
Who Gets to Be a "Real" Artist?"
- The one who knows art collectors.
“Everyone is an Artist…Everyone is a Critic” - Stuart Rapeport, Circa 1992. TK
As an amateur artist myself, I particularly liked this episode
I cannot hear Jackson Pollock's name without letting everyone know that Lee Krasner, his wife, was the superior artist.
Listen to season 2 of the podcast death of an artist which focuses on the relationship and careers of pollock and krasner.
It's interesting how to concept of "Ameteur" and "Professional" have swapped. Amateurs used to be people that did artwork for the sole purpose of creating artwork, while Professionals were those who did work by commission and under the guidance of a patron.
Now, artists who work under patronage or for commercial work are considered amateur and "outsiders", while those who work 'solely for the art' (let's be honest, it's a paycheck) are often touted as the "true" artists.
Seems to me there was a class issue at work too: amateurs were (I assume) the nobility and the upper middle class, while professionals worked for those same people. So by default amateurs got a bit more respect
EXCELLENT CONTENT
I miss the Art Assignment dearly, but I'm very happy to see Sarah again.
You should do street artist, art at punk shows, etc, I know a few in New Orleans
Strictly speaking, an amateur is someone who may occasionally make some money from their activity but it is not their main income. A "hobbyist". A professional is someone who earns their main income from their profession. In its pure form, the word is not a judgement on quality or competence. It can be said that amateur work is truer than professional work because the professional HAS to do the work in order to live. The amateur does the work for love of the work itself.
There is a lot of largely meaningless hype around art. But someone who creates art, whether as a hobby or profession, is an artist. People who admire artistic talent but are unable to create artworks themselves often become art critics. These are the people who are most vocal about what constitutes "real" artists and "real" art.
What a great subject for a video!
Love the series!
Cool!
Excellent video!
the most surprising shame of it all isn't that Sobel was ignored because of misogyny, it's that Jackson Pollock _was_ taken seriously.
For the love of god - VISIT THE AMERICAN VISIONARY ART MUSEUM IN BALTIMORE! For me, it was the best museum experience I've ever had.
Art is 100% subjective
Art is in the eye of the beholder and the holder of purse strings.
❤
Can't wait for the episode about bananas stuck to the wall.
The fact is, people like to label, whether it is art or other people.
Before I even watch this, no it's not amateur. It was deliberate thought out and was created as a part of an entire series of work. You can't call that amateur if you make your life's work out of it.
Art is a way of story telling. Think about the cavemen paintings. Think about the Milky Way galaxy when you look at the night sky. Think about the handprint of a baby’s hand on a piece of paper that you have kept for years.
Thank god, i thought it's an epsiode defending the chaos of modern art .
This is getting to the part of art I hate. Critics choose art, not on the art itself, but on the artist. She's not trained, she's an amateur, but his work is brilliant. In my amateur mind, art should be independent of the artist. The emotions I feel are primal, and if art speaks to those urges, then I consider it art. The artist shouldn't be part of the consideration.
The community decides who gets to be a real artist.
The difference is publicity. Pollock was a thief--he copied someone else's idea.
If you ever express that someone creating art is not a "real" artist, then you are incorrect, every single time
Make a video about AI art.
Living creatures create art.
Would love a video about plagiarism in art.
I guess that would fit into a video about the influence of technological progress on art, if they'd make one. Though personally I'm not sure there's that much to say about it right now. To me it seems like just a tool, like Photoshop. It makes it easier to make certain kinds of images, at a certain fidelity, but does it make for new art in and of itself?
We'll be covering this in an upcoming episode. Stay tuned!
The worlds greatest art is made by children. Some adults realize this and have tried to copy them but it is nearly impossible for an adult to go back to that joyous state of pure creative genius that only a child can have.
Okay, first of all. Popculture and art are mutually exclusive. When something is too popular, it just can't be art anymore.
Drip paintings are not amateur or pro art. They aren't art (fine art) at all. They're okay for wallpaper, but they aren't art. Read Ayn Rand along with Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi for a good explanation of their definition of art: "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's fundamental values." I would add that with all of abstract expressionism, there's nothing to contemplate. One takes a brief notice and then moves along because there's nothing to give it a meaningful structure. It's the musical equivalent of banging on a keyboard -- just a bunch of random sound. Or of a collection of random words that claims to be a poem.
Hard disagree. I have an abstract drip painting in my room and it’s one of my favorite pieces of art in existence. Pieces like these feel like they’re meant to be lived with. The more you look at them, the more shapes and figures you see. It’s like staring at the clouds- you’ll always see something new.
It's not okay to express one's (or some author's) personal hot takes as universal truths