It’s always the non-creative people who are the most vocal about whether or not they think certain works of art are good, and I think that’s important to note. I think for non-artistic people the most important aspect of art is technical skill. It’s always the people who aren’t out here Actually Doing that think their constructive criticism has value. The thing is, art should be entirely subjective. Art should always be about creativity over technical skill.

 

A lot of people see art as simply the ability to draw or to paint well, artists are commended by non-artists for how well they can make their art look like something else. Hyperrealism is often praised over works that look less true to life. What if I told you hyperrealism is antithetical to what makes art? What if I said having technical skills makes you a tradesperson and not a creative? What, after all, is creative about a copy? Something that looks exactly like something else?

 

When I think of what makes a piece of art great I think first and foremost of its uniqueness, something that is distinct is more memorable than something that is technically drawn or painted well. There is more value in developing and honing a style that is truly and uniquely yours than creating art with the goal of it looking realistic or “good”.

 

Another aspect of art that makes a piece great to me is obviously the thought behind the piece, I should feel something. Art should be deeply personal or political on some level, I personally find it impossible to create anything that doesn’t have part of me in it. If you are focused on palatability over profoundness or politics you’re simply doing it wrong.

 

When the camera came into use in the 1800s there was mild panic among artists and painters who up until this time possessed an important and sought after skill, being able to capture images. Prior to the camera’s invention art was dominated by hyperrealism, which made sense. At this time hyperrealism lent itself to creativity as few people were able to bring lifelike scenes to paper or canvas. The creativity stemmed from what each individual artist chose to capture, their choices being sometimes personal and sometimes political.

 

I think art and what it means to be creative can change drastically depending on new technologies, for better or worse. After cameras became more widely available capturing images became almost mundane, and artists had to begin thinking of new ways to be creative, and to stand out. This is what birthed impressionism. And this is why AI will never replace artists, a machine can’t be horny or angry and thus can’t produce anything resembling real art. The only types of “artists” who are scared of being replaced by AI are ones who rely almost solely on technical skill over creativity or substance.

 

 

Social media and late-stage capitalism have also contributed to all of this, and made the state of the art world unbearable. Everyone feels so desperate to make money or be noticed for their art and somehow as a result we’re getting so much of the same asinine shit. Algorithms have created this insane hive-mind where one singular and derivative piece of art becomes “viral” and a million other “artists” come up with similar pieces, and make a similar short-form video content post about said piece. Art has become clickbait. Every comment section is full of “constructive” criticism. We’ve completely lost the plot when it comes to art and creativity if we’re letting technical skill, algorithms, short-form content, and a million bots in comment sections dictate what makes art good.

 

This is all why children are more imaginative and authentically creative. Children aren’t usually concerned with being technically good, they seem mostly fixated on bringing a vision to life. I see a lot of art out there made by children that is far more profound than a lot of the works I see produced by adults. It’s simply more honest, more creative. They haven’t had several well-intentioned people tell them how their art needs to look more like something else to be considered real art.

 

Noah Becker of White Hot Magazine wrote:

“The art world loves to talk about freedom while operating like a cartel. The art world calls itself an ecosystem, but it behaves like a closed loop. The same names circulate, the same ideas get recycled, the same faces nod in agreement at different dinners. Newness is welcome — as long as it looks familiar. The art world claims to hate hierarchy, yet worships proximity. Who you know matters more than what you make. Access is mistaken for insight. Visibility is confused with relevance. The art world says it values risk but what it actually values is managed risk — danger that won’t upset donors, offend collectors, or complicate press releases. Radical ideas are encouraged right up until they cost something. Artists are told to be authentic but only within a narrow emotional bandwidth. Be political, but not inconvenient. Be raw, but not unstable. Be critical, but don’t name names. The system wants urgency without consequences. Criticism has been replaced by vibes. Curators are brand managers. Galleries are lifestyle companies. Magazines compete for access instead of truth. Everyone is afraid of being uninvited, unfollowed, or quietly erased…Art used to be a problem. Now it’s content.”

 

My last gallery show very much operated like a cartel. Becker’s words align with my first-hand experience in the art world perfectly. I did have gallery exhibits before this that were admittedly great. Not every gallery owner is poisoned by capitalism, but most are. Maybe I’m a curmudgeon or an extremist but I can’t stand the idea of intertwining art with my survival income at all. Nothing is more important to me than keeping my work away from capitalistic ideals of what art should be about or look like. I viscerally hate the concept of doing this shit for profit especially if that means remaining apolitical or being palatable or losing any authenticity.