Theres a "Sell-Out" point in all of us. GooGoo dolls from Hardcore punk to Chick luvin alterative.... Metallica from Metal to.... wtf ever "Load" and "Reload" were... Hard Country?... Shak Oneal in the early 90's stating "Ill never do an AD for any type of media, I do this for the love of the game".... now hes got what... 10000 ADS run.... his own Rap CD and A few movies. PFFFFT.... I think we all just need to come out of the |sellout closet| before we get to deep. The difference between the "sellouts" and the "true to their form" artists... is that the sellouts make the $$$$$ doing what ever others want them, the hardcores... well thats why people invented the term STARVING ARTISTS. In the words of Jerry McGuire.... SHOW ME THE MONEY!!! lol

I see what you state here. I see your usual energy in the statement and I know you in a way honestly think so. I DON't agree ;) you know but in a way I see you being right in the judging of "corporate arts" and society will and skill to sell what suits the people ephemeral sensations. I revolt your assumption: isn't way more ephemeral what is meant to constitute the trend-y measure of success (in art too) instead of emotion of a piece of art? Art has always been about not properly emotions, but translation of them into something NOT ephemeral at all (not even performing art of Pollack was indeed eephemeral, since the effected lasted and still last in us to...) all that said (oh!!! one day we have to sitr in a place, either here or in holland OR USA and talk for ages about these stuff) I think this piece is phenomenal. :) Glad to see your pieces again. Are you ready for Friday sending? ;) Hugs :)

Therefore the "starving artist" are incapable of producing art. being an artist means that it is your job. There is no such thing as a part time artist, because that's just being a hobbyist. An artist makes a living out of art, therefore if he cannot sell his work, he fails as an artist.

Beautiful piece - but the rest is just semantics. Art is just a word, which is defined by MY dictionary as: "Concsious arrangement or production of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a way that affects the aesthetic sense." You can create and use your own definition for the word 'art', but then it has no meaning in common language.

Synroid, is this a statement of what YOU believe, or is it your take on how society views artists? I hope it's the latter because according to the above statement, I have failed as an artist. OK when I'm depressed I believe that... Wonderful image BTW.

WAAAAAAAH, i will not try to defend my own work, you have a right to your opinion, ohhhhh, you're so controversial ;D as usual this is a cool work which gives me pleasure in viewing... is that not enough?

actually if you view the definition of artist, it is not "one who makes art for money".. the definition would read "one who makes or creates art".. I have honestly been thinking the same thing as of late though, which is why this is really trippy to me.. i have been wanting to post this sort of thing in the forum.. there could be a good argument between an actual artist and a hobbiest... i myself am a graphic artist and make a living at it doing many things including murals.. the fine art work that i do on the side would sort of be considered a hobby I guess, but i consider selling an idea or getting a reaction from people gratifying enough.. don't get me wrong, i would sell a painting if the opportunity came along but i really don't push the issue because i grow too attached to them ;) .. the idea of someone failing as an artist is one that i am undecided on because I myself do make a living as an artist.. i can definately see your point though.. hmm... don't know if my ramblings make any sense whatsoever but at this point who cares ;) kick-ass work, man.. Hobbiest with a plan -

So how do you account for the idea that a genius is never appreciated in their own time. It seems as though by your statement, Edgar Allen Poe wasn't much of a writer, either, Gallileo wasn't much of a scientist, Etc. I assume, as others, that these aren't your feelings. But maybe they are. If so, then I guess most of the people on renderosity aren't artists by your definition, but by mine they are held in high regard. Either way, label me "aspiring artist" and if I never make a penny at it, I will have enjoyed every second (and you can take that to the bank!). Blessings.

Whether or not I have people on renderosity in high regard has nothing to do whether or not I consider them artists. So how do I account for the idea that a genius is never appreciated in their own time?? I consider it an incapability to reach any audience. I could also blame it on the ignorance of Poe's generation. But an artist should be able to adapt. How much of his work is being published and bought now? We consider him a "genius" because we buy/read his work. Like it or not, skill is measured by profitability/ sales/ success in our "civilization". If this would not be the case then literally EVERYTHING can be considered art.

People must adapt their tastes trough artists,not the opposite. I think that the role of an artist is not to serve the common tastes, cause common tastes can be bad (and the history is full of example of this kind of error). An artist create a taste, some people like it, some people not, some people change their taste. Cubism change our tastes. Abstract art change our tastes. Renaissment change medieval tastes. You say that "skill is measured by profitability/ sales/ success in our "civilization"." and you are right. But is a "civilization" wrong. (sorry for my bad english)

Definitions of art are there a lot, and sometimes they have led into new styles. Viewing backwards these new kinds of art, these new definitions of art have always ended as parts of ART which itself seems to reject proper definitions :-)
This would have been a nice discussion thread :-)

Hey, it's all true, we sell out all the time, our societies are founded upon principles measured by success, both in renown and financial terms. If you meander along selling hand crafted pottery bowls, you're an artisan, a craftsman, but if you work for an agency and take home a monthly wage, you're a souless corporate lackey. Maybe, maybe not, I believe you should aim to make yourself happy, regardless of the agreed conventions about art and artists. I work as a free-lance graphic designer, and somedays I think, yep, really sold out today, but then othertimes I do things that make me happy and that I'm proud of, and at that point all the selling out arguments melt away as I display my artwork and get paid...... Fantastic imagery as usual and well, the message I'll take with a pinch of salt. ;-]

I think your a shit stirrer! You use controversy to play with peoples emotions (forcing the viewer into forming an opinion) and as a result this makes you an artist. The Rennaisance is over though, Art by commision is no longer the only form of art. "Art for the sake of Art" my friend. You are not the car you drive. You are not your fuckin Khakis. You are not your job. You are not how many paintings you sell.

You just got to ask yourself, does it go with my furniture?