PDA

View Full Version : Artistry, fame and criticism?



SeventhArchon
04-19-2015, 10:03 AM
Do you believe X is art?
What makes it (not)?
For the longest time I've wondered. Last week I visited an art gallery, lots of great stuff there. Sculptures, pictures, what not. A lot of skill in one, another looks like I could repaint it with double detail. Some of the ideas were clear, some were just mergings of everyday stuff... but how much of it was truly art? I'd say all of it, but I have to say I'm extremely disappointed whenever I see three lines semi-randomly thrown onto a canvas and pasted into an art gallery as high art. Mark Rothko is to me a prime example of this. I could paint myself one of those paintings in a different color, place it on my wall, put on my hipster hat and call myself an artist. I have a pretty scary imagination when it comes to cases like this, I imagine the artist looking at his auctions, sold, laughing so hard he wipes his eyes with a banknote, then throws it out of the window.
Then there's Nicki Minaj. Just take a look at her YT comment sections. Taken directly from Anaconda's (and all upvoted a lot):

Anyone else here because they wanted to see the number of dislikes? :P

%5 Music %95 ??? :)))

This is fucking disgusting
But my favorite of them all, coming from a person with the username "opinion ated"...

Trash.
Nothing else. No reason, no argument, no actual thought process, only 6 characters.
And my favorite argument? It's not art, it's a product. It was made to sell, so it's immediately a product. Does that mean all art has to be free? That any $$ gained change the work in any way? And why can't it be both? No one bothers to answer... I do believe it can. The success does not change the art. If it was true and earned millions, it would be the same as if it earned 5E. If it was a false display, an attempt to achieve praise or profit, it doesn't matter whether it impressed your co-worker/classmate and your mother only or if it sold for a million.
As for the critics, what is appropriate criticism? Countless comments, even on the aforementioned YT videos, describe anger issues on the poster's side, something that saying in real life would have them deemed insane, on something that doesn't necessarily affect their life at all. I wonder what makes people feel so strongly about art. Maybe it's their anonymosity (just look at the BM in Smite itself), maybe it's just the need to lash out their hatred without being hated for it in turn... But what is constructive?
What about realistic drawings as well? Are they art to you? I don't really classify them as art in my book. To me, it's the same as photography or sport. Anything can be considered an art to some degree, however, these are not primarily art, all I see in a realistic drawing is "I'm bored and want you to appreciate my skill" or "Look at all the art I could do if I had something in my head as opposed to just my hand".
Lastly, does fame change anything? Does $$ conquer the mind of an artist? Do they sell out? As for me, I really appreciate when for example a band releases an album heavily criticized for not being as X as the ones before, then goes "Screw that, we do what we want, take it or leave it". I'd rather take an album that isn't 100% my cup of tea than an album that's a watered down version of what they released before, a "forced" album is the equivalent of a cash grab or used as an euphemism.

Spudgun
04-19-2015, 01:22 PM
Apologies for replying before you're done, but I'm of the opinion that art is entirely a matter of perspective. Some people see beauty in landscaping, others in architecture, sculpture or very particular types of music, and others see it in a well-fought boxing match or football play, whereas others see nothing there but violence.

Part of the beauty of art is that people are inherently very disagreeable creatures, so we keep making more and more works of increasingly varied art in order to either outdo others or find validation.

AllknowingWolf
04-19-2015, 02:48 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCJ9BV0IUXU

As someone who loves, music. art, and film (okay maybe film is stretching it). I will say, NOT everything that is created is art. That's an insult to art. And even if you wanted to take it literally. That doesn't mean it took effort, is worth anything or is good.

Loulina
04-19-2015, 03:22 PM
This is a very vast topic and I dont know if it can be explained anytime shorter than 2 years in a university during courses given by a least 5 professors of art. :)

my idea is, it depends on the artist, on his/her past works and your relation to them on general. hardly there is any artists (other than god when it created the universe) that just had one piece and is done with it all :) if I am gonna buy just and "X" from and artist, I have to know him/her very well, should be able to follow his/her through his/her works to see and appreciate what this X is all about now. To be able to follow this and relate to that X, he/she should have started from somewhere at least closer to my level in his/her previous works.he just cant start throwing down from highest towers of freedom..I am not there.I have never been there. It can annoy me. I can never understand him/her if this is where s/he has started, causing me to throw insults back at him/her :)

artists who are presenting marginal pieces usually dont care much about harsh cricisms.

TheCalvinator
04-19-2015, 09:42 PM
In 1964 a Swedish journalist pulled a prank on European art critics by having a 4 year old chimp produce a number of paintings which were then shown in an exhibit under the name Pierre Brassau. Glowing reviews included: "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer."
(I've seen a film about this prank many years ago but cannot seem to find it online, wish I could link it) There's also Pockets Warhole which is another chimp who sold works of art for several hundred dollars out of Canada. Then there's your high school art teacher which is enough of a discerning connoisseur as to be able to attribute numeric value to a student artists work (could never figure out the increased merit between a 76% and a 83% grade). To put it mildly, I think televised sport commentators serve a higher purpose than that of the professional so-called art critic.

The concept of "sellout" art, low art, commercialised/marketing art-product vs high art or whatever is interesting since it also seems to suggest that the critic or appraiser has that uncanny ability to categorize and differentiate between them thus revealing it's true value. Many great works of art from antiquity, the renaissance and still today is/were commissioned and paid for (or coerced) by wealthy monarchs, religious entities, people and corporations. So does that make an artistic product (such as St. Peter's Basilica) less deserving of praise or worthy of praise at all? Same thing with music. In the 90's, Grunge arguably stopped being "underground" when SEARS catalogues were selling 80$ plaid shirts so kids could emulate the hand-me-downs the early band members wore.

Disquieted1
04-19-2015, 10:15 PM
Art is art because it has meaning. However, artists are scammers when it comes to that.

The Thinker doesn't look like it has meaning, but it does. It was created in 1902 and represented philosophy -- referring to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and emphasizing that it was "natural" philosophy instead of as applied to technology. That's art.

No. 5, 1948 is an "abstract expressionist" painting. And I write that in quotes because it looks like this.

http://www.jackson-pollock.org/images/paintings/number-5.jpg

This is merely a painting. It isn't art, and therefore has as much value as the materials used to make it. The meaning is nil, and therefore it's worthless. However, it's the third most expensive painting ever sold. IIRC approximately 250 million US dollars.

The same can be said for other art forms, like music and theater.

Myrkulyte
04-20-2015, 01:30 AM
I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Like the picture disq linked. I doubt I could copy it, but really, it has a meaning? It`s just a random pile of trash. some cable, some ketchup, mustard and some dirt and I created a thing like this in RL. The name of the creator give value to their bizzare imagination.

My litterature teacher made a strange point that art with message is a thing of the past. This days, you do art just to do arts, but arts became so frequent that you find a *so called art* on every road. Like *as trivia* there was an artist who pissed in a bowl and put a holy cross onto the bowl. Voila ART.

Spudgun
04-20-2015, 04:52 AM
Art is art because it has meaning. However, artists are scammers when it comes to that.

The Thinker doesn't look like it has meaning, but it does. It was created in 1902 and represented philosophy -- referring to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and emphasizing that it was "natural" philosophy instead of as applied to technology. That's art.

See, this is what I meant by art being a matter of perspective. For you, it has to have meaning. For others, form trumps function.

Edit: I in no way endorse the type of painting depicted in your post. :)

RippleApple
04-20-2015, 05:01 AM
Art becomes art when it's recognised to be art. High art is art when it's recognised by the art community to be art.

Among manga, Naruto is a lesser form of art because its community consists of pubescent teenagers with nothing to compare it against.

Jojo's Bizarre Adventure is a higher form of art because its mangaka has work on display at the louvre and he's worked with Gucci on a fashion line. That, and its later art is masterful.

Loulina
04-20-2015, 05:42 AM
Art is art because it has meaning. However, artists are scammers when it comes to that.

The Thinker doesn't look like it has meaning, but it does. It was created in 1902 and represented philosophy -- referring to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and emphasizing that it was "natural" philosophy instead of as applied to technology. That's art.

No. 5, 1948 is an "abstract expressionist" painting. And I write that in quotes because it looks like this.

http://www.jackson-pollock.org/images/paintings/number-5.jpg

This is merely a painting. It isn't art, and therefore has as much value as the materials used to make it. The meaning is nil, and therefore it's worthless. However, it's the third most expensive painting ever sold. IIRC approximately 250 million US dollars.

The same can be said for other art forms, like music and theater.

Meaning is ..what when you think about art? it is probably how you relate to what you see or hear and how you relate to them through your own past experiences or through your own understanding of the artist in general.

a chess board left in the middle of a game means nothing to an observer who doesnt know the rules of the chess or to anyone who has never seen a chess board before. it is just something they stare at and say "wtf" but if you know chess you can feel excited seeing the following possible moves even when there are no players around. if you know players sitting by the table you can even perhaps estimate why he/she led the game to that point and it gives you move pleasure to notice that.

there is no piece of art that will give you the "meaning". you have to get it yourself. that is what makes art different from craft. it is mysterious. even in the most classical forms of art. they make is so beautiful it is almost mysterious. you begin to think of god and universe and meaning of life :)

Disquieted1
04-20-2015, 07:32 AM
Meaning is ..what when you think about art? it is probably how you relate to what you see or hear and how you relate to them through your own past experiences or through your own understanding of the artist in general.

a chess board left in the middle of a game means nothing to an observer who doesnt know the rules of the chess or to anyone who has never seen a chess board before. it is just something they stare at and say "wtf" but if you know chess you can feel excited seeing the following possible moves even when there are no players around. if you know players sitting by the table you can even perhaps estimate why he/she led the game to that point and it gives you move pleasure to notice that.

there is no piece of art that will give you the "meaning". you have to get it yourself. that is what makes art different from craft. it is mysterious. even in the most classical forms of art. they make is so beautiful it is almost mysterious. you begin to think of god and universe and meaning of life :)

Not necessarily. This is what I mean when I say artists are scammers when it comes to meaning. Any meaning in a painting is given by the artist, inferred by the viewer. In No. 5, 1948, meaning can be inferred but none is given. It's still worthless. Why? Anything can have meaning if the viewer stretches their interpretation.

I did some more reading on the painting. It seems the artist wanted to do something that makes paint look like paint, canvas look like canvas, and yet still have a painting. While impressive the artist did that, there was no meaning in the painting. It's merely an object.

Dammu
04-20-2015, 08:38 AM
Not necessarily. This is what I mean when I say artists are scammers when it comes to meaning. Any meaning in a painting is given by the artist, inferred by the viewer. In No. 5, 1948, meaning can be inferred but none is given. It's still worthless. Why? Anything can have meaning if the viewer stretches their interpretation.

I did some more reading on the painting. It seems the artist wanted to do something that makes paint look like paint, canvas look like canvas, and yet still have a painting. While impressive the artist did that, there was no meaning in the painting. It's merely an object.

Would argue, but it won't change anyones personal view of art. For me, No. 5 is art and more than just an object. I do not not value it as much as it costs, cause I'm not an artist or collector or in anyway into painted art stuff (Pollocks works are highly valued for reasons), but I still consider it as a piece of art and value it more than some realistic painting from random artist.

(not related to my point, but just to add info)
From Merriam-Webster:
: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings
: works created by artists : paintings, sculptures, etc., that are created to be beautiful or to express important ideas or feelings

Spudgun
04-20-2015, 09:36 AM
I did some more reading on the painting. It seems the artist wanted to do something that makes paint look like paint, canvas look like canvas, and yet still have a painting. While impressive the artist did that, there was no meaning in the painting. It's merely an object.

So, if a work has meaning for the artist but not for the viewer, it's not art?

Disquieted1
04-20-2015, 10:33 AM
Would argue, but it won't change anyones personal view of art. For me, No. 5 is art and more than just an object. I do not not value it as much as it costs, cause I'm not an artist or collector or in anyway into painted art stuff (Pollocks works are highly valued for reasons), but I still consider it as a piece of art and value it more than some realistic painting from random artist.

(not related to my point, but just to add info)
From Merriam-Webster:
: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings
: works created by artists : paintings, sculptures, etc., that are created to be beautiful or to express important ideas or feelings
Straight from the dictionary definition, No. 5 is not art. It has no meaning, Google it.

So, if a work has meaning for the artist but not for the viewer, it's not art?

You're misreading. Art has two meanings, one purposed bu the artist and one inferred by the viewer. If I took a shit into a jar, that's not art. I gave it no meaning, but any viewer can give it the meaning of the bottling of poison in the human figuratively. That's not art. If I threw a towel with paint on it onto a canvas, to me it could represent Nixon's half-assed coverup of Watergate, but to any viewer it's just paint on a canvas. That's not art. Both are merely things, given crazy interpretation by one person.

Edit: it would be a symbol instead of art.

SeventhArchon
04-20-2015, 04:14 PM
In 1964 a Swedish journalist pulled a prank on European art critics by having a 4 year old chimp produce a number of paintings which were then shown in an exhibit under the name Pierre Brassau. Glowing reviews included: "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer."
(I've seen a film about this prank many years ago but cannot seem to find it online, wish I could link it) There's also Pockets Warhole which is another chimp who sold works of art for several hundred dollars out of Canada.
There is art which is art purely for the sake of being art and there is art which would have not been art had it not reached a level high enough to compare. And this is a perfect example of the latter.

Then there's your high school art teacher which is enough of a discerning connoisseur as to be able to attribute numeric value to a student artists work (could never figure out the increased merit between a 76% and a 83% grade). To put it mildly, I think televised sport commentators serve a higher purpose than that of the professional so-called art critic.
The art teacher's ratings are mostly not based on the artwork you've placed in front of them, it's mainly their impression, opinion, agreement, caffeine level and the clothes you wore on Monday 3 weeks ago. A good art teacher will not review an art work alone.

The concept of "sellout" art, low art, commercialised/marketing art-product vs high art or whatever is interesting since it also seems to suggest that the critic or appraiser has that uncanny ability to categorize and differentiate between them thus revealing it's true value. Many great works of art from antiquity, the renaissance and still today is/were commissioned and paid for (or coerced) by wealthy monarchs, religious entities, people and corporations. So does that make an artistic product (such as St. Peter's Basilica) less deserving of praise or worthy of praise at all? Same thing with music. In the 90's, Grunge arguably stopped being "underground" when SEARS catalogues were selling 80$ plaid shirts so kids could emulate the hand-me-downs the early band members wore.
The question is: "did the artist sell out"? The answer goes down with the artist.

Trubblegum
04-20-2015, 04:33 PM
There is a difference between, say, the Mona Lisa and shit on a canvas.

As many "artists" have found, you can literally vomit on your own canvas and make thousands.

Van Goh?
Artist.
Awesome paintings.
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.X6qvoglV%2bwpGBmaW8zae6g&pid=15.1
This?
No.

I swear if I wanted to I could literally buy everything in Smite off of gems made from scribbling.

SeventhArchon
04-20-2015, 04:43 PM
There is a difference between, say, the Mona Lisa and shit on a canvas.

As many "artists" have found, you can literally vomit on your own canvas and make thousands.

Van Goh?
Artist.
Awesome paintings.
[IMG]
This?
No.

I swear if I wanted to I could literally buy everything in Smite off of gems made from scribbling.

It's that cringeworthy thought I described in the first part that I get when I see this kind of "art" sell. It's all about having a rich friend who puts your "work" into top picks in an art gallery when it actually looks like someone reenacting my math notebook.

Trubblegum
04-20-2015, 04:59 PM
It's that cringeworthy thought I described in the first part that I get when I see this kind of "art" sell. It's all about having a rich friend who puts your "work" into top picks in an art gallery when it actually looks like someone reenacting my math notebook.

Exactly.
Most of the rich snobs that call your crap-on-a-canvas art are just fads trying to make themselves look stylish by making crap up about crap.

Disquieted1
04-20-2015, 08:49 PM
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.X6qvoglV%2bwpGBmaW8zae6g&pid=15.1


I see. This painting represents the chaos, yet the gracefulness, of life -- and furthermore, the ebb and flow of nature. The white blurs symbolize what we don't know, sometimes some areas more than others, and there are loopholes in some other areas, but that shows how philosophy and science have revealed the truth of the world. The colors are bright, with the only dark color being purple. That exemplifies the darkness in the bright truth. Some thing we discover are dark, for example the atomic bomb. Others are bright, and the summation of the bright colors leads to humanism. We can reach our fullest. Would pay $500 million.



Bullshit.

RippleApple
04-20-2015, 09:18 PM
That's like, your opinions, guys.

TheCalvinator
04-20-2015, 09:45 PM
There is art which is art purely for the sake of being art and there is art which would have not been art had it not reached a level high enough to compare. And this is a perfect example of the latter.

What I was trying to get at via the chimp prank example (and the objective of that 60's exercise) is to think about who or what and by which authority issues validation or endorses what is called high level art and as such, more worthy of praise, reverence or whatever and what isn't (in this case, professional art critics attached a value judgement to the work)? Had this prank never been revealed and that people to this day still viewed this as the work of some anonymous genius how would anyone know it's actual value or merit or whatever and would it at all matter? I get the general idea of what your talking about, I just don't understand what mechanisms or governing body establishes the "higher level" your referring to and why people who consume art should care.



The question is: "did the artist sell out"? The answer goes down with the artist.

What do you mean by "sell out"? If it's in the context of -can the artist maintain integrity knowing that he's applied his skills towards something he might not have otherwise done on his own- such a a religious fresco, royal portrait or political poster or whatever for favour or money, then I don't think it matters at the end of the day because artists need to eat, live and earn a living. If it makes the art work less valuable in some overall macro-perception from outside critics or appraisers then, as in my previous point, who and by which authority do they render judgement? Why should people care if that's the case?

KingScuba
04-21-2015, 01:12 AM
I can appreciate art, but I cannot understand how some of the 'abstract' paintings can pass themselves as art.

If it looks like a 5 year old can do it in a couple hours, how is it worth money? I can do that stuff blindfolded, quite literally :S

I quite liked this by the way : http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-abstract-art-just-an-excuse-to-be-a-bad-artist

Loulina
04-21-2015, 02:32 AM
I can appreciate art, but I cannot understand how some of the 'abstract' paintings can pass themselves as art.

If it looks like a 5 year old can do it in a couple hours, how is it worth money? I can do that stuff blindfolded, quite literally :S

I quite liked this by the way : http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-abstract-art-just-an-excuse-to-be-a-bad-artist

you should first check his early works. for painters abstract art is achieved usually after perfecting their classical forms. Picasso's father was also a painter. A classical one. it is told that he stopped painting when his teenager son completed a half finished hand in one of his father's paintings while the father himself was unable to do it for a long time . I am not sure if this is true but it true if picasso wanted he would be an extra ordinary classical painter as well. these debates are thrown into the internet perhaps because to help people understand how exactly professional critiques are doing their jobs.

art community is not a very big one those who appriciated him are usually his collegues, his classmates at school or his teacher in this early life..and you know how big the ego of artists are. if anyone can earn it, it really means something. but in some other cases it comes ofter the artist dies through careful investigation of professionals if he started somewhere "out of old school"

SeventhArchon
04-21-2015, 11:29 AM
What I was trying to get at via the chimp prank example (and the objective of that 60's exercise) is to think about who or what and by which authority issues validation or endorses what is called high level art and as such, more worthy of praise, reverence or whatever and what isn't (in this case, professional art critics attached a value judgement to the work)? Had this prank never been revealed and that people to this day still viewed this as the work of some anonymous genius how would anyone know it's actual value or merit or whatever and would it at all matter? I get the general idea of what your talking about, I just don't understand what mechanisms or governing body establishes the "higher level" your referring to and why people who consume art should care.



There is art which is art purely for the sake of being art, as for example music, painting or sculpture, whose primary purpose is to make an impression on a viewer and nothing but, then there is art which would have not been art had it not reached a level high enough to compare, which could be just about anything. The expression "get sth down to a fine art" explains this one well. The only "art" in that prank was the "art of trickery"(which falls under the second category), the chimp's paintings were not made for any impression, no message, only a trick on the side of the man.


What do you mean by "sell out"? If it's in the context of -can the artist maintain integrity knowing that he's applied his skills towards something he might not have otherwise done on his own- such a a religious fresco, royal portrait or political poster or whatever for favour or money, then I don't think it matters at the end of the day because artists need to eat, live and earn a living. If it makes the art work less valuable in some overall macro-perception from outside critics or appraisers then, as in my previous point, who and by which authority do they render judgement? Why should people care if that's the case?

The answer lies within the genuineness of the message and impression and it's entirely your decision whether it affects you.

Myrkulyte
04-24-2015, 05:35 AM
I'm not so versed into the paint/music domains so I'll speak about literature.
The true European belletristic started in Ancient Greek. Those dramas/comedies/tragedies were arts because they were exposing a vision of the popular belief and everyone could understand them. The form and the content gave them the character of art. They were the peak of belletristic by then. What they lacked? They had a fixed form. For example, every tragedy finished with a death, and no comedy finished with a death.

After the Rome fell, Europe culture went down, and the art was scarce, at most it was God related art.

After the renascentist era, and into the illuminism and classic, the belletristic came up strong, but it still had flaws. The fixed form and cannons of the classic literature was a pain for a lot of writers. But that separeted good writers from the decent ones. Creating an awesome scene in the rigors of the classic era was a challenge. And such, writings like Faust became art, cuz they rose up to the challenge.

Into the romantism, we have the era of lacrimogen poets. Everyone launched in a plethora of sentiments about girlfriends, lakes, forests. It was an inflation of bad poesy. The only good romantic poesy is the one who go into abstract, and stops from using the overused formula of: "2 epitets in this verse, 1 comparatin there, ah, let's add the word love too, it sounds good". Every romantic poesy which went into abstract is art, while 90% of the other ones are just rehashes of an overused formula(For example in Ro, somewhere around 1890-1920 there was a mass of poets who copied the style of Eminescu).

In realism, art was is kind of belletristic which captures the society and give it life(Balzac is an example). Simple adventures in towns, a meeting with a poor woman who begs moneys isn't art, it's just something artificial. A true realist novel is one who can capture a random episode in a veridic maner and doesn't seen hand-made. As I said, Balzac is art.

After that, we go into Simbolism/modernism/neo/post-modernism.

The simbolism made the pass to the poesy of intelligent people. No longer easy to understand by every simpleton(like a random romantic poesy) this became way harder to identify as art because the sentiments were hidden, and some poets could create a poesy with tens of meanings. Usually, identified as art were the creations with lots of meanings and simbols.

Modernism era is too complicated and complex to speak about it.
Neo-modernist ers just copied the models of the past(at least here in RO), trying to give them new nuances. Art was harder, way harder to find there.

Post-modernism, our era, is the ruleless era. You can write all you want, how you want, what you want. But sadly many books don't get more than *good reviews and big selling successes* , they won't last, who will remember *Harry Potter, or war of worlds* after 50-100 years? Books get made so fast that it's useless to classify them as arts, as more and more will come and take their places.

Grimfortress
04-30-2015, 10:56 PM
I think the key so many of us forget is that Art is at its essential nature is about communication. It is all between the creator and the experiencer. Sometimes art just does not appeal to people. In the realm of music, I can't stand rap. It doesn't even sound like music to me, but I know to other people it has deep meaning. In the counter I love a lot of Country, Folk, and Classical. To me those songs reach something deep in both my cultural heritage and views of life.

As the old saying goes, "Art is in the eye of the beholder' (yes I know it was beauty but I'm amending the idiom)

AllknowingWolf
05-03-2015, 07:35 PM
To further discuss 'art' in music, there's an argument a certain youtuber makes that music is not art because it costs money. So its a product...But not only is not all music cost money. But there are a shit ton of artists that charge money for commissions and work. So I find it extremely hypocritical to think this. Does anyone think otherwise?

And actually another arguement is, if one piece isn't art, all isn't art. But I think that could be changed too, fine its art but its extremely bad art...I believe art needs passion, and there are people that make stuff not from passion or desire. But money. And that's in all aspects of art.

Grimfortress
05-08-2015, 10:01 PM
To further discuss 'art' in music, there's an argument a certain youtuber makes that music is not art because it costs money. So its a product...But not only is not all music cost money. But there are a shit ton of artists that charge money for commissions and work. So I find it extremely hypocritical to think this. Does anyone think otherwise?


If we take this stance then the David by MIchelangelo, the Mona Lisa by Da Vinci , and all the works by Rembrandt's works are not art. Because all those Masters were paid for those works on commission.