RE: Sorry, But No, Not Everyone Is An Artist
I appreciate your comment, sincerely, but I have to stand by what I've said.
First, however, I want to acknowledge that I agree with you about artistic people. That's a real thing, and something I appreciate. However, this person has to cultivate an actual craft in order to become an artist.
Art of course has a subjective element to it, but not nearly as much as the modern world says it does. A lot of it is bad, and we should be able to say it's bad when it is. Like I said--not in any unnecessarily unkind way, and actually we should try to be as charitable as we possibly can, but being honest shouldn't be a crime. And not speaking about how poor the general quality is continues to bring down the quality.
I was hoping the bridge example would bring the truth out a little, but apparently that didn't resonate?
For example, in the 90s, songs on the radio were apparently at an average of a 12-year-old's reading level. Now, it's at the reading level of an 8-year-old.
And truly, it's not just about me as an artist. If it were, it wouldn't be worth the personal controversy. It's about culture at large, and what is happening on a larger scale. If anything, we need a few voices like this to balance the equation of "everything goes." If we don't speak up a little, the whole culture starts to decay.
And.. if it were just about me? Trust me: it affects me. The more people can't recognize quality and are not challenged to develop an artistic eye, the less they are willing to invest in appreciating real work, and artists find fewer people to share their work with and can't have it supported. It's just the truth. I have certainly seen this, on repeat.
But I do welcome your comments here any time. It's helpful for the dialogue, and I have no problem with dialogue (even if I won't always be able to keep on top of it all).
All the best,
Kay
Thanks for the reply. I can appreciate your take on the matter. I do agree that people should freely critique and analyze the art of other people. In a way, response to art is what gives art its voice. I, too, have witnessed that people are afraid or hesitant to comment on the works of others when they have something other than kind things to say, and I do think that growing caution of expressing opinions has caused some artists themselves to be less likely to take criticism well and work on improving.
Like you point out with that link, the reading level or complexity in vocabulary within songs has definitely lessened over the years. I've noticed this in books, too, especially best sellers. I wonder if that has to do with a cultural shift and less complexity becoming more commonplace in different artistic mediums. I do agree with your points about the degradation of art due to a growing acceptance of less thought-provoking works. Personally, I feel it is easier to judge writing than visual pieces. In that case, you can tell when the subject matter is very juvenile and doesn't bring any new thoughts up for consideration.
My comment was more about how I don't like the idea of trying to define art or tell people what is or isn't art because even if I or some others don't see it that way, it can still be art to the creator or someone else. My worry with this idea is that seeing one type or just a few types of styles as valid can damage the community as well. I'm not much of a fan of abstract art or the work of Carmen Herrera (you can look her art up on google), but many people appreciate these styles. So then, is art only valid once the individual meets the standards of the art style they choose? Who creates these standards?