[tjr225]

The problem is that by the time you are retired you are most likely so unplugged from the cultural zeitgeist that fuels art that you can’t possibly be good at it. You can’t possibly create anything meaningful that would speak to people who really consume art, because those people are young. They’re a few examples of outsiders who buck this trend but it’s a little presumptuous to think you’re as good as them. So now you do “art.”

[atoav]

I am a MA of art and an avid consumer of it. I work at an art school.

What you say can happen, but it must not happen. I have seen 70 year old artists doing more modern and interesting works than graduates. And this is not rare, which you would definitly agree to if you are an avid visitor of art exhibitions.

Also modern or high art is something different to animation which our poster here wants to go for. I don't see why age would matter there — and even if it would OP is 20. We have many people who start to study art at that age. The average age might be 19 to 20.

It is true, that not everybody is made to transition into art, especially if they did not do any art their whole life, but that has nothing to do with the Zeitgeist and everything to do with the time it takes to develope the eyes needed to see what needs to be seen.

[rikroots]

... wow!

I have to disagree with every clause in this statement. First, you don't have to be "old" to become "retired"; people can take extended sabbaticals away from the money race at any time in their adult lives to pursue their current passions - if only for a short while. If/when the money/support runs out, "un-retire" and prepare for the next "retirement". Second, being part of the "cultural zeitgeist" has nothing whatsoever to do with artistic ability - unless you're more interested in artistic fame/fortune than producing art that realises your vision. Third, you do not need to be young to "consume art" - btw that is a truly awful phrase that grates against every fibre of my alleged soul. I for one didn't suddenly stop appreciating the creativity of my fellow humans on my 30th birthday.

I'm sorry this comment has turned out to be so negative, but art is, for me, not a job description; it is a passion, an addiction from which I never want to be cured.

[EdwardDiego]

"Presumptuous" is (nevermind the unfairness) far less concerning compared to the arrogance that speaking on behalf of the entire art world and/or zeitgeist entails.

[tjr225]

I try not to be presumptuous- as I honestly have no idea what art is because I’m too old to keep up- so maybe you can give me some examples that buck the trend? If not I’ll just assume you’re offended because you’re old. And honestly, if you think art is as easy as retiring and doing it; you deserve to be assumed to be presumptuous. You have a lot to prove and nothing to lose. Suck it up. Prove yourself or deal with mediocrity. Or worse, you’re just pretending.

[EdwardDiego]

So if you have no idea what art is because you're too old, why do you presume you can gate-keep art for others?

> I’ll just assume you’re offended because you’re old.

I very strongly suspect I'm younger than you. And I've no personal interest in artistic pursuits, to be explicit.

The only reason I took offence was that you were, in short, acting offensively. Even shorter - you were an asshole.

In the longer - you were telling people who wanted to pursue art that they were presumptuous for daring to do so because they weren't the right age in your opinion. That far exceeds presumption and veers directly into arrogance, as I mentioned earlier.

> Prove yourself or deal with mediocrity

We are nearly all, in the scheme of things, mediocre. That's just how normal distributions work.

But, you don't have to shit in someone else's Weetbix just because you're feeling your age and Scrooge's "Bah humbug" makes more sense than ever.

Just stick to yelling at those damn kids to get off your damn lawn.

[tjr225]

You’ve read too much into what I’ve said and taken too much offense. Text is hard so I don’t blame you. “retiring and doing art” is an absurdly simplistic path to point someone towards and it’s not helpful to anyone who wants to actually create anything at all. And it probably doesn’t work in most cases.

“It’s what I’ve done!”

[robertlagrant]

You seem to be aggressively pushing the idea that "doing art" means a very specific thing - i.e. influencing millions. Someone painting for their own pleasure is also art. And even if they never exhibited it, they are still creating things. Your definitions seem far too narrow.

[tjr225]

You’ve got me all wrong- surely you would agree there is a difference between arts and crafts… right?

[EdwardDiego]

My apologies, I only responded to what I read, I don't think I extrapolated beyond that, but could be wrong.

[tasuki]

> You can’t possibly create anything meaningful that would speak to people who really consume art, because those people are young.

Why do you think "people who really consume art" are young? This seems completely false to me.

[freetime2]

I think this is a very narrow view of what art is, who can partake, and what it means to be good at it.

[tjr225]

I don’t care.

[nl]

> You can’t possibly create anything meaningful that would speak to people who really consume art, because those people are young.

This seems an unusual statement. I consume a lot more art in my 40s than I did in my 20s for example.

As a counter-example, Stan Lee only began drawing superheros when he was 43. Hard to argue his work isn't consumed by young people.

And of course Paul Cézanne only got his first exhibition when hr was 56.

[tjr225]

That is very cool about Cezanne, but I suspect he is one of the outsiders I am referring to.

[JKCalhoun]

> So now you do “art.”

That's fine. I would never do art for someone else anyway. It's not that it's a selfish thing, I don't do art to amuse myself, but rather I do art to express a thing I need to express (for some reason). That is not dictated by the whims of others.

[badpun]

What you describe is not art, it's derivative commercial products that use "art" skills. True artist almost by definition does not care about audience, or tries to predict what they will like.

[eru]

What's your definition of 'true art'?

[tjr225]

And yet if you don’t have an audience, what is the point? Even the most outsider artists managed to gather a following some way or the other. It isn’t just happenstance.

[Jataman606]

> And yet if you don’t have an audience, what is the point?

Point is art itself

[badpun]

Don't caring about audience doesn't mean not having an audience. But, caring about an audience, by definition means creating derivative commercial works of low value. It works in business, but not in art (unless your goal is to just make money and/or be famous).

[Borrible]

For the longest time, caring about your audience was the only way to get food on the table for an artist.

Michelangelo and Carravagio were contract artists and so were most of the others who are considered great artists. Of course, their audience wasn't the plebs.

And what is considered true art today is nothing but a rigged money game of the big art houses and galleries.

[ilyt]

Uh, just no.

[nigma1337]

If nobody watches me play video games, what is the point?

That i enjoy it.

Some people enjoy doing art.