One element not raised to the discussion is how much physical attraction contributes to the success of the creative. It’s only natural for folk to pay more attention to pretty people, but in an arena where art/content is flooded, popularity comes sometimes not so much through the art or content itself as much as who is the creator. The art is no longer the art but the presentation/presenter of the art. And when success depends on attraction, that one needs to in some way pander to their audience in some way, then you see where some compromises come in maintaining a steady income through the content.
I think that's what she meant by saying that people often see art through persona. Thus attractive people are more popular because of their "pretty privilege".
"Talent belongs to the beautiful". After years of binding the musical package with the presentation (music videos, the artist themselves etc), it is true that we have been led to believe that "talent belongs to the beautiful". I think it is generally accepted that Elvis was one of the first artists to have their appearance marketed alongside the music, with the Beatles being sold on music first as a typical comparison
@@TheRedstoneWeb Now this is something I wanna argue about! Lol! Kinda sorta about the Beatles. For one thing Beatlesmania jumped up well after the success of other pretty big artists, like Johnny Cash, but the Beatles obviously became way bigger. But they also had a counter culture appeal. Their music was fresh, but even their bad long hair look caused rabble rabble rabble. Only their looks weren’t measured in the same way as Elvis, more applauded for looking rebellious than genuinely handsome like Elvis. Same with Cash: his music is fantastic, wasn’t a pretty boy, but he also gave himself the image of an outlaw…… So I guess what I’m rambling about (lol) is that picking the late ‘50s/early ‘60s is a bad spot to suggest musicians then didn’t benefit from having a certain look.
Being an artist is tough. I try to market myself on social media, but I’m a very private person. Sometimes it feels like you have to show so much of yourself to get a response. It sucks.
because they have a morbid fascination with that seeing and enjoying peoples lives. In the past only famous people had to deal with it now everyone has to deal with it unless you dont use social media but if you dont then you dont exist
@@bunnyteeth365 yes exactly. I feel like art is the only escape from my day to day life if needed. If I make it my career it becomes mandatory, I have to deliver it, on point, every day, I would have to marked it on social media, everyday to satisfy the algorithm and the audience. What have I left to escape to then?
@@pinkbluepanter2374 I just can't be consistently creative. I'd rather have a more reliable job.I feel like you have to be super passionate about art and not much else to be a career artist. I have other interests that are more likely to lead to a career, so I'd rather go for those.
This is literally why I have no drive to make any career out of creativity anymore. Which has only made my creativity more and more insulated and primarily personally relevant. It's just a long inaccessible conversation with myself at this point
I think we killed creativity when we started to commodify art, when we made it a tangible thing with guidelines of what constitutes as valuable or worthless, we turned the experience into a product for consumption.
For anyone that wants to make money off of their art, art has always been a product for consumption. We live in such an interesting time of far reaching connectivity, where anyone wanting to be heard and seen has to compete for an audience.
I feel like the tumblr era was a huge part of speeding this up. It was already happening for decades but tumblr made it easy for anyone to make money from their talents if they posted often enough.
You are not being too idealistic. I once had an argument with someone where he said that "if enough people enjoy the work (music) then it is great art." but then I wanted to ask, where is the line between art and entertainment? or do they mean the same thing? And if someone makes good art but doesn't have the network to carry it, does that make it bad?
i think the point becomes moot when you consider the philosophy of aesthetics. aesthetics surround us, and aren’t limited to the chassis of “traditional” art. it’s also entirely subjective, since art cannot exist outside of bias (individual perception). art has many mediums, and can exist in and out of traditional mediums. having said that, i think “creatives” use art to create products. the rejection of capital and productizing your art creates this sort of tunnel vision to your art. it’s romantic to limit art to this domain, it’s just not accurate, imo. entertainment is just a fucked up bundle of art, products, weird psychological tricks to garner attention, etc.
I remember Dr. Dre said something about social media sapping the mystique of the artist. It hits different when you can experience someone's art without knowing what they're doing every waking moment
@@AliceCappelle There was a time when studios used to value movies as a higher form of art, and artists like most directors those days used to work tirelessly for l'art pour l'art. Now there are only few and even though they are trying to maintain their integrity in this world, it is tough to present art which doesn't make money. Many Indie Films are shadowed and never shown as such to the audience or marketed poorly to them, the age of art in filmmaking is barely surviving and most can't make it through. Can't blame many, you know, Art doesn't pay the bills.
Stop complaining and go private there are many books that teach you how to create your own production houses and self finance your idea through mass persuasion. Don't like the game create your own social medias, your own Disney's Warner Bros etc the power is in your hands stop waiting for hand outs no one will save you but you so be like an exploit the fact people are starving some good art and charge through the roof mercilessly
It sounds cringey but I was watching an episode of Psycho-Pass the anime in which they were discussing the phenomenon of people becoming icons. One of the character’s argument was that icons rarely become revered because of their own creativity but rather because people buy into the character and raise them up on a pedestal. So basically the audience created the celebrity instead of the celebrity garnering an audience
"Our inability to live entirely in the present ( like most animals do ) combined with our inability to see far into the future, make us strange in-between creatures. Neither beast nor prophet." -Arundhati Roy Field notes on democracy
This covers most of my feelings around making my art a ‘career’ that I hadn’t fully articulated. The whole idea of branding or marketing my work is really unappealing to me, and not just because of my poor social skills lol I care more about my art reaching people than making money off of it so I use social media, but there’s only so far you can reach without playing into marketing/trends and whatnot. It can really affect how you value your work & effort, but I am trying not to do that so much.
I have a similar experience. I´ve always enjoyed sewing and making my own clothes, and people always asked me if I was gonna study fashion/industrial design, but really I just enjoy making things for myself without pressure. Why does the thing you love to do have to be marekteable? With that being said that´s why I prefered to study something a little more profitable and leave the sewing for my free time.
@@luisaagudelo7782 I, too, am in this boat. I started making jewellery when I was in high school, because I wanted more earrings and rings to wear, and instead of spending money to buy, I could just make them with the beads and wire I already had. And people kept asking me if gonna sell them/become a jeweller and make a business. That's not something that I had in mind. I just made them cuz I felt like it, and it was fun to do. But nowadays, whatever hobbies we have, whether it be making jewellery, making clothes, creating art, it is highly encouraged to begin monetizing our hobbies, and it can eventually take the joy out of doing them in the first place as a form of expression, and just because you felt like it. I'm now in college for Illustration, and Ive decided to take a break, step back, and actually think about what I'm doing, and I'm leaning more towards creating art as a hobby, and study something that I will make money from and is applicable in society.
As a writer who's just starting, and trying to figure out whether I should create a niche or a persona, or "learn the ropes" before making stuff for myself, this video was an eye-opener. It's important to remember why I started writing. To have fun.
Yeah saddly the priviliged people mostly are the ones that found themselves more capable of doing art or hobbies related to it, the struggle people, the hardworking class, simply don't have time for it. The priviliged ones are the one that makes most of the content we consume daily; for example: movies. If you think about it doing art is one of the greatest way of rebel against the inequities of life, so if you find yourself, (no matter the situation you are), eager to express, do it. Even if just reach a few people, it's for the good of all of us.
the privileged ones? you have a very outdated, woe is me mindset. People sacrifice a lot of things to do what they love. LOL. if you can't do it, don't call the ones who do privileged. Some people maybe, but not everyone.
@@redefinedliving5974 exactlyyyy im seeing all these comments calling pple who have made something of themselves in that industry privileged some of these people started at the very bottom and some only became beautiful after they gained money and were put under so much pressure by pple in the society themselves to look that way since pple are using that in their defence .
@@justimani4 dude you missed the point. Privileged here means people who actually didn't have to struggle with money and ACTUALLY had TIME to be creative or otherwise experiment with art, unlike the people who work extremely hard jobs. Especially manual labor who have no time for it.
@@mcchilde2903 yah but most pple are making it seem like everyone who has made it in the industry had all these privileges which is really not true for a lot of artists out there, there's pple who started with nothing working multiple jobs and had to work to get the equipment they needed to get recognised and fortunately enough pple loved what they made even with those little resources and they grew and others invested into them
One other point I like to mention about the marketization and privatization of art is how it is very oriented towards the eurocentric ideal. In my country, at least, a lot of the art I've seen nowadays are following the western aesthetic which is considered "more pleasing" to the eye, more "modern", and more marketable. A lot of young artists follow this ideal and hence, the culture of art in my country could slowly lose its grip on their identity roots and heritage.
There's a whole genre of TH-cam videos with titles like "How I Make Six Figures As an Artist" and they are incredibly depressing. Basically you need to make art, yes, but also manage several social media accounts, make prints and stickers, do shipping, make TH-cam videos, engage with your followers, all while replicating the most overdone, inoffensive, commercial illustration styles on every Millennial soccer mom's Pinterest feed.
I feel like that thinking would just replace commercialization of art to just pandering pretentiousness or offensive for the sake of being offensive. After all something was mainstream used to be obscure. So while something popular doesn't make it perfect or good, hating on something popular doesn't make you superior
"An artist must never be a prisoner. Prisoner? A prisoner of himself, prisoner of style, prisoner of reputation, prisoner of success etc." ~ Henri Matisse
As someone that is currently having the opportunity and privilege to make a music album with some great musicians and facilities, I have to share/ point out how small of an artist I feel and how little of myself artistically I have discovered, in contrast of how much marketable I have to be. I am not blaming anyone for it involved in the current project, or even myself, I'm just doing what most of us bands are doing and trying to hold on to the profitable recognition of the hours of work we have spent in a network we are trying to join or sometimes build with great amounts of effort, neglecting effort that could go into an more in depth artistic discovery of ourselves and the art we are making Thank you so much for this video and for sharing and exploring such an important topic
Hollllyyyy shiiiit I am in the process of getting to where you are and I want to give you props and sparkles for this! I have had a huge writers block because “I don’t know who my audience is” basically I’m thinking about how I’ll market myself before I’ve literally written anything
Well, to be honest it takes TIME and dedication to discover yourself. I think nowadays we need to make money (duh, capitalism) so when you choose to go the professional creative path, it is normal to go through that double path : a part of marketable enter the existing system and then another part where you are working for yourself. EVERY photographer went through this, a lot of painters we adore too.
When I first entered college I had plans to become a level designer for video games but instead changed my mind to pursue art as I fell in love with the work I was creating. I felt like a Matisse looking at his painting in awe at his own talent. I recently was Commissioned by my aunt to create an artwork for her friend and I created an amazing (in my opinion) drawing that she rejected. To be honest, I felt defeated because the drawing they showed me that inspired them to commission me was a computer artwork designed to be simple and non-offensive. The fact that my aunt's friend liked that artwork over my own really hurt me. I put relative symbolism and heart into the drawing. My art style is inspired by the German expressionists of the early nineteenth century so I semi-understand why they might raise an eyebrow because it's not "whimsical" and "cute enough" but I truly do not want to do the art style that I see many people doing. I watch a lot of TH-cam artists and their works to me seem almost the same. The color pallette, the design, it's too conveyor belt for me. They're not bad, they're just not what I feel I need to do. Expressionism is an art style that is controversial and many times looked down upon but I love it because it allows me to express myself in various ways. I am a socialist artist who doesn't want to become another cog in the machine but the machine is way too powerful to fight against.
Thank you for your content! In my perspective, many people are somewhat losing the ability to see, understand or appreciate art. Art is something that has to be consumed slowly, it needs time to be digested. But the world we live in keeps moving at a faster and faster pace, leaving less and less space to dwell on the message that anything artistic is trying to convey. But also the massive increase of content leave many people with the sense of wanting more and faster, caring little about the authenticity of what they are to consume - caring more about being simply entertained. Creativity will always be every where making it nearly impossible to be killed but the way we choose to put it out into the world/react to it is definitely changing the dynamics between being an artist and creating meaningful art.
This is so interesting... and depressing! As someone who writes songs and posts them online I've long had to realise that I'll never be able to make a career out of what I love bc I wouldn't be able to make the change between simply 'artist' and 'creative entrepreneur'. J'adore tes videos et tu t'exprimes tellement bien, c'est toujours intéressant de voir quelque chose bien recherchée et intelligente comme ça ❤️
You don't realize how much ahead you are in the game. Most people can't even bring themselves to create, let alone post their art online. It takes immense courage to create anything in this world.
I wanted to copy nature but I couldn‘t. However, I was content with myself, as I discovered that the sun can not be imitaded, it has to be represented with something else... with colour. - Claude Monet
As someone who always wanted to make a living by making art this hit hard 😥 Trying to find a space in the ~*creative market*~ (those words should not be next to each other lol) while developing as an artist is so incredibly hard. Instead of growing by being exposed to art, you have to look at job opportunities and what pays, and tailor yourself to survive, while attempting to sacrifice as little as possible of your individuality. I'm very glad to see this discussed more, and I completely agree with the solution - I hope people realize that the market is killing the arts; it's been so discouraging watching people (especially established artists I've been following for many years) fall for the NFT scams, and I'm worried it will only get worse 😒
But artists willingly choose to participate in markets. They can choose to just be dedicated to mastering their craft. Great art can only be created when the artist is motivated by making great art, not by satisfying the market or to make money from it (although they can sometimes do both: make great art and satisfy the market). If you want to make art for the love of it, then why are you trying to find space in the "creative market"? If the answer is to make money, then you have to realize that markets are made up of people who buy what they feel like buying and sometimes those people might have terrible taste, but it's still their choice. You can't force people to be fans of your art.
@@kevincastellanos6328 The issue is that people need to make money in order to live. Without public institutional support for the arts, the only way artists are able to pay rent and buy groceries (let alone raise children etc) is by participating in the market were the will of consumers takes precedence over the quality and authentic creativity of the art. As the arts become less and less supported publicly, artists are more and more forced to become "creative entrepreneurs." Places like universities that historically have supported the arts and humanities have increasingly been cutting funding for such programs because they don't earn enough money, and in this current phase of society money has become the sole measure of social value.
@@Bronyboy123 I agree that people need to make money in order to live. And I'll entertain the idea of publicly funded institutions that allow artists to be paid enough to live financially stable lives so that they can focus on making meaningful art. My main point is that if you want to distribute your art through the free market as a way of making a living, you can't complain about it when you don't succeed because the market is dictated by people who choose to pay for what they find worth paying for. Go ahead and try to publicly fund artists. I have no idea how that will turn out. But leave the free market alone because trying to manipulate it so that it values “real art” is likely a dead end.
@@kevincastellanos6328 and why shouldn't I complain? Art is not created out of thin air - I need a place to live, food, and materials. If I choose to create art purely as a hobby I have to take a different job, which means my time to create will be limited, which means creating less and less people who see it. We don't "willingly participate in the market" when there's no other choice. It's work or starve.
@@ChodnikOgrodnik so you’re okay with complaining that people didn’t find your art good enough to pay attention to it? you can’t force people to like your work. and the idea that there is no other choice in the market of art is just not true. consumers have never had a wider range of art to choose from before.
Artists are still here, and art is most definitely not dead. Anyone who believes that is not trying very sincerely to find it. Additionally, making money or a career out of your art or creativity is not shameful and does not always lead to the “death” of the artist. (Also - Emily Dickinson never “made it” during her life, either. She never made a living through her poetry. Most of her work was hidden from the public.)
I think you make some really good points, as always. But I wonder if 1) art was ever free of commercialisation and marketisation, before the age of “creative entrepreneurs” 2) if it there were always gatekeepers in the form of editors, commissioners etc
From history art was always a commodity and commercialisation was a part of it as well as gatekeepers. Van Gogh for example wasn't popular because he didn't put a lot of effort into his work, he was just not a entrepreneur and didn't conform to the standards of his time.Mozart as well. Bach in his times wasn't known widely mostly his home area, the guy who makes good music and couldn't get any stable job as a court musician, while Händel was a superstar. Most of us when seeing an old painting think this must be a great artist but nearly all of the time artist created something that sold well. The customers wanted something for their living room not a masterpiece.
I commend you for citing William Deresiewicz’s article as your inspiration for this video essay at the end. I just finished reading the article moments before I started watching your video and I was thinking to myself, ‘I hope she cites him’ and you did. I’ve seen too many video essayists outright steal content from articles and journals without giving credit to the author, and simply pass it off as their own ideas, which can be quite infuriating. So yeah, good job and great video!
It's just sad how certain groups of people believe that only they can trully undersrand real art and that they have the power to decide what true art is. True art will find its way to the audience, but it's much harder to be seen, heard or read when some people are just blocking you.
You've made some great great points, excellent video! Just wanna shed light on the overestimation of how artists were valued in the past, and underestimation of the constraints upon them. For example: Joseph Conrad was frustrated of the Victorian public trapping him into writing only nautical-at-sea novels, because only those novels would sell due to his persona as an ex-sailor Polish immigrant. The Great Gatsby was a commercial flop at the time because it didn't cater to mainstream taste. Even Shakespeare wrote women in disguise as men due to Puritan pressure to not have too many men actors in dresses or women characters behaving out of line (among other censors.) Few artists have been free from mainstream trends + persona, and even fewer had their art recognized only because it was good. After the death of an artist, they are deified, and we have the habit of forgetting the unpleasant bits of their realities.
I'm so, so happy to have found your channel. You make me reconsider so many things about my life, that I always end up writing something in my journal after watching your videos!
Hey Alice, I found this a really interesting watch. I believe you've read and quite like 'In Praise of Idleness' by Bertrand Russell. There are many artists that see the sublime in idleness as the cradle of cultural contemplation and reflection that is the soul of art such as Oscar Wilde- "To do nothing at all is the most difficult thing in the world, the most difficult and the most intellectual." He also wrote in his essay The Soul of Man under Socialism this - "The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible." Wilde isn't justifying slavery, he is simply stating the inconvenient truth that great artists require a level of idleness not accessible for an extremely high percentage of people on the planet, I'd say 99% at a random guess, with you and I being Western, White and middle class easily in the top 1%. With the way the world has been conquered and colonised to serve the Western World we are certainly the slave masters, however fancy we dress it up. My point is not many successful artists have to work three jobs just to eat, and art has always been a cultural truth telling (or truth constructing) of the privileged. So for me, if the artist has died in the modern paradigm how can you really argue they ever existed. Maybe privatisation and marketisation do kill an abstract idea of purity in art but the suggestion there is that this is a corrupting force that as swept into the arts and converted would be holy artists with pure souls into capitalists. Its not something I find convincing and is as I far as I can tell the logical extension of your thesis (please correct me where I'm wrong). It has always seemed to me that the majority of artists from over the ages have either been aristocracy like Wilde or have been entirely dependant on their support. Art has always been subservient to commerce and I don't see any paradigm shift there. While maybe the internet has democratised taste, I think the bigger influence on the creative peoples and communities of this world has been in empowering everyone to be a nerd, to pursue their own little niche where there is only little interest within your local geography but enough of an audience globally. That's surely what has motivated you to post video essays on TH-cam. "The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author." I think Barthes' idea has a strange aspiration to forget the author, as the authors existence is inescapable. For me the only people who understand the dilemma properly steer into the skid manipulate their persona as they do their art. This is the Savannah's, but its also the Oscar Wilde's with his outrageous public persona, you can see it in the Billie Eilishs and the Madonnas of the world too. Maybe music is harder to discuss because the visual of the 'author' is part of the creative dimension for sure. The idea that an authors persona limits interpretation and therefore creativity but the opposite is just as arguable. Sorry for the essay, I found you're video very thought provoking and had to get all my thoughts out. Love your videos
I just read the fig analogy in the book I'm reading, "The midnight library" by Matt Haig. The whole book is about a woman who, between life and death, has the oppertunity to undo any regret she might have had in her life. I picked that book up purely because the summary on the back of the book sounded so promising. If you spend time thinking about regrets in your life or the fact that your life could've been so different from your current one I highly recommend this book. As always with Matt Haig there are loads of references to mental health and social media as well.
I Don't belive that creativity develops when You're exposed to art. I am a very creative person in the way that I Am always thinking of stories, characters, fantasy creatures and seeing art what really improves is my motivation towards making that a reality but not my creativity as that is something I develop just by living My day to day life. Anyway I really liked the video. Thank you for making this essays as they really motivate me to write down my thoughts and to think 😁
Compare a person who is creative but grew up with family who do no art and have no money to buy them and a person who's exposed to art at a very young age. this is almost always the case with wealthy kids who have fairly intelligent parents. they dont even have to be creative themselves/
mmm i could see your point i mean when we are little kids we are very creative in a way and we are still very young but i would say that a more interesting and articulated creativity if that makes sense develops when you are exposed to art. Everyone copies and we get ideas from that the more you see and understand in art the more you can play with it.
@@marceloaguirree not necessarily. it's true that it accelerates our progress and develop our sensibilities more. but time is of essence here, a person exposed to art might reach their peak at 30. but a person who experiences intergenerational poverty and has natural talent for it, and needs to work on surviving first, but do art when he can...might reach their peak at like around 60 and still continue growing...
I think the death of the artist might be encapsuled in a B. Russell piece called "In praise of idleness". Essentially, if you work 9 to 5, it's pretty difficult to have enough downtime to be truly creative, or to find "inspiration" although he doesn't talk about that. The points he makes are best read in the article as I cannot hope to transmit everything or do the genius justice in such few words but that's more or less it in a nutshell.
Salut Alice! Je suis artiste (poétesse) et je me suis abonnée à ta chaîne il y a quelques mois. Merci pour cette vidéo. Tes analyses sociales sont, comme d'habitude, pertinentes et personnelles. Avec Shanspeare, tu es une de mes TH-camuses préférées. J'aimerais que tu fasses des vidéos en français de temps en temps (mais c'est comme tu veux, j'aime ton anglais aussi). Il y a deux choses, toutefois, avec lesquelles je ne suis pas 100% d'accord: 1. Il n'y a pas nécessairement plus d'introvertis que d'extravertis parmi les artistes. Certes, les introvertis ont tendance à mieux se connaître eux-mêmes car ils passent plus de temps avec leur propre personne. Ainsi, ils créent des oeuvres d'art centrées sur les sentiments et la réflexion. Mais les extravertis sont tournés vers le monde extérieur et ce sont souvent eux qui, par exemple, écrivent des histoires palpitantes. Même si j'en fais partie, il faut en finir avec le mythe de l'artiste mystérieux! 😅 2. Je pense que nous sommes tous nés artistes et que la créativité est ancrée dans la nature humaine. Si nous faisions disparaître tout l'art et les adultes de la Terre, les enfants finiraient tous, un jour ou l'autre, par être touchés par la beauté de la nature et dessiner, chanter, etc. Sur ce, je te souhaite beaucoup de bonheur et d'inspiration pour tes prochaines vidéos. 😀
I watch a lot of commentary TH-cam, and I have to say, few commentary creators are exploring as many unusual / unique commentary topics and angles as Alice. Thanks for always making us think!
I'm not sure it has anything to do with creative entrepreneurs. Since when would artists blame others for not creating? If they did, did they ask themselves what kind of sacrifice they made for their art? I see one main reason Art is dying: human beings became shallow, impatient, lost and obsessed with social status ("I want everyone to see me as ____" -fill the blank with your favorite label). I myself am guilty of those flaws. Do we ever take the time to observe, explore, introspect and create real art from scratch? Even if we did, would we accept that nobody recognizes our art but ourselves? Even if it had value, would anybody really take the time to contemplate it? Btw, there is no art if there is no slowing down.
knew that i was sticking around as soon as the bell jar quote hit ✨ i used to detest the idea of being a professional artist because i didn't want an employer or audience or anyone but me + my desire to make decisions about my life...but then i realized that i would be doing art regardless of whether i had a side job or other responsibilities....so would i rather wake up at 4 am everyday to make time for everything or try the creative entrepreneurship ting?.....it's still for me. it's always going to be for me. but i guess other people can witness it as well
Has art ever been devoid of that marketisation? Especially during the time of Virginia Woolf. Dubliners by James Joyce was rejected by all 14 publishers based in Dublin at the time. When he wrote Portrait of the Artist - which was absolutely groundbreaking - he also couldn't get that published because it was so forward thinking. The only way he got it published was by his networking. He knew W.B. Yeats who put him in contact with Ezra Pound, who subsequently got it serialised. Then once again, after having made a name for himself, he struggled to be published. In the end he only got Ulysses published through knowing Sylvia Beach of Shakespeare and Company bookshop in Paris. Nobody wanted a novel that is sometimes lauded as the greatest of all time. Is today really so different? Detective novels, murder mysteries, and "smutt" books were much more likely to be published at the time. To me that sounds a lot like writing 2nd rate genre fiction to appeal to the market today.
I mean that is why the Woolfs set up the Hogarth Press. To have a printing press of their own. They refused to print Joyce’s Ulysses due to the fact they knew it would cause a scandal.
The widespread backlash to the ‘I don’t dream of labor’ videos was pretty irritating. It seemed as if no one was truly, genuinely attempting to articulate a criticism that felt sincere to them; rather, because it was a popular thing to do that guaranteed views (and money), most responses felt like hollow “gotcha!” moments in which the person invalidated the entire idea and refused to engage with any part of it in good faith, all so that they could smugly wag their finger and say “uh uh uh - you forgot to mention privilege 😏” The art of rhetoric is, too, becoming more visibly profit-motivated and guided by what they audience wants to hear about, and specifically, what opinion they want to hear. Tee Noir’s channel is one of my favorites for a number of reasons, but I love how she purposefully creates videos that are meant to start a discussion (back when that phrase still meant something lol) and aren’t merely, in her words, “a conclusion factory.” Anyways, I went to school for orchestral performance so good fucking luck to me ig 😅
As an artist, having to choose between self-actualizing and idk, STABILITY IN ALL ASPECTS was a hard choice for me but no regrets 🤧 thank u for these vids like always!
"the more you see art, the more creative you become" I have to respectively disagree, however admit that at one point I was also as idealistic about art. It's a cliche that "travel broadens the mind" but I've come to realise (after years of trying to convince myself otherwise) that not all minds have the potential to be broadened. The same also applies to creativity and by extension curiosity - there are a lot of people who would like to be creative, consider themselves artists and aspire to be creative individuals, but not everyone can be - and that's ok.
I feel like seeing art has diminished my creativity rather it makes me want my art to resemble the art I saw, rather than wanting to come up with something on my own.
everyone is an artist. life is creative and so everyone is by default. is it expressed in the same exact way? no. but it’s not something for you or anyone to gatekeep
In my case, seeing art, paintings or listening to more music kills my inspiration. It kinda puts limits to my creativity or ideation process. The less I see, the more I'm able to create or ideate.
Thank you Alice for this video! It's so nice to hear an unarticulated thought come alive and explained in a video essay. One thing that I thought I'd add is neurodivergent thinking is highly linked to creativity. So, folks with ADHD tend to be more creative naturally on average (speaking from experience). But to your point, since art is so privatized, it crushes the "space" for neuro-divergent ideas because it's often not marketable yet.
This makes me think of Daft Punk somehow, they're amazing artists and have a deep love for the philosophical aspects of music making, but they also have a business mindset in that they own their own record label and all, for the sake of controlling their art without much influence from the music industry.
@@reneevandyk5022 Their robot "personas" are not personas. They have no character, they have no gesture, they are empty. They have been created soly for the purpose of making sure that anyone who listens to Daft Punk listen to Daft Punk because they like the music and not because they are influenced to liking the music by the person who made the music.
This is not just a problem in the world of art, but also in the world of fundamental science and that of philosophy, albeit without the aspect whereby one needs to "look the part" to succeed. This might be too pessimistic of a take, but I feel as though anything that does not return short-term gain is just outright neglected nowadays. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to people that mathematicians are not web devs, cryptographers, or engineers (I'm a mathematician), anf that we can not *just* do applied mathematics, because pretty soon we will run out of things to apply. This is not to mention how without pure mathematics, we will sooner or later run into the problem of not even understanding our tools well enough to apply them.
this video made me think of the film "Work Without Author" I've watched for my philosophy class in college, it also talks about the creativity and artistic process in terms of different perspectives and societal structures, would recommend it
I actually like art that is individualized. Some should be especially if its the artists intent, or they dont mind it. Sometimes i think of the artist that wrote it as a character in the story, or their own experiences that i cannot directly relate to but feel more meaningful when i separate it from myself and see it as their story they are telling me. I used to avoid some of Taylor Swifts songs because they lack relatability for me. A lot of them are about very specific romance stories which i dont really relate to. But when i saw it as her story, and listened to it that way i found that i enjoy it so much more. I admired her vunerability and the way she described her own experience, which inspired me to write my own stories, worring less about relateability and how it could still be enjoyable to those who dont relate so i dont have to worry about being "relatable" to succeed n gathering a substantial audience.
I really like hearing your perspective. I agree that privatization often isn’t conducive to creativity, however, I generally disagree with much of your framing. Your framing of “we’re killing creativity” seams to imply to me that society’s creativity comes specifically from people who work creatively driven jobs. Although you touch on the “democratization” of art, I feel that your points ignore the expanded opportunities for creativity that technology society helps provide. Technology and a lot of modern perspectives really help open the door to more casual creativity. Even running with the idea that societal creativity starts with those who follow creative pursuits as a career, I feel that your video looked too kindly on the art of the past. Art has rarely been a lucrative field, the stereotype of the starving artist exists for a reason. People who manage a lucrative or even sustainable career as an artist do, and have almost always done, so because they’re creating something that people want. On top of that, class and access have regularly curbed the abilities of some people to be as creative as they potentially could be. Thanks for the video, I really enjoyed watching it.
Creative entrepreneurship have always existed with artists being photographer medium. Cave paintings served as a form storytelling lessons to younger generations to improve hunting All art now is used just to launder money especially with E art
@@gracefire9067 Those complex emotions came after but original thought was only meat, honey, water. Current remote villages who still hunt have identical feelings for food and only food. You are a product of generations of humans trying to find food.
@@gracefire9067 Art is a tool for survival that's why it exists. Subconsciously we are made to enjoy art because the stories they tell. You are over thinking the human species more than animals who want more than meat, honey and water
Hmmm…I dont know how I feel about this video. I’m a writer and honestly I don’t think there has ever been a better time to be an artist just due to the fact that you *can* make money relatively easily. Also this idea about constraints surrounding pleasing other people/editors isnt new. Emily Dickinson wrote in her diary about this same concept calling it all “too much and not the mood” bc she was tired of having to write for other people. I dont know…I understand where people are coming from but the fact that being an artist is a real career that so many people can pursue is incredible to me. Think about all of the starving artists from the past hundred years who were geniuses in their own right and history will never know them simply bc they did not have the network or luck that others had. Everything is in our hands right now and its really like a new renaissance. No hate whatsoever. Well put together video and I always love how you convey messages/ideas but I had a few thoughts on this one.
Love your comment, we have more opportunities now for people to enjoy our work than ever before. We just need UBI to provide a stable base for artists to stand on!
como brasileiro devo dizer que é só uma garotinha burguesa reclamando que a arte "de mercado" não discute as coisas que ela queria que fossem discutidas e que são as coisas que ela aprendeu nas aulas dela sobre literatura critica moderna srsrs..mas tem pontos interessantes nesse ensaio dela....apesar da falta de realismo pratico imediato do argumento dela ...ela ta muito heurística..falta uma epistemologia pra dar sustância rs
Just found this channel. Fantastic. This video is such a breath of fresh air. I was an adjunct for two years, in philosophy. Quit and left academia because of all you say here. In the U.S., the situation is awful. Succeeding as a non STEM academic is impossible without being an entrepreneur.
I was actually hypothesizing recently for some time as to why people are all crazy after music esp. kpop artists (not kpop itself really and also it’s a wonderful sub division of pop music, no debates on that) and I realized that these music companies take a billion cares to prettify the idol and make them appealing to the audience in every possible way from hair to clothes to accessories so when people consume their music (or any work of art or writing) it is very easy to consider art equivalent to the artist (when both are intended to be marketed ). Fans would argue that they are obsessed with their top tier work but this idea of persona really comes into play because no matter how good a person him/herself be, it’s still a carefully orchestrated Persona made to be visually appealing. In Stephen Colbert’s interview of BTS, he asks the fans would they still be a fan if BTS were fifty year old fat guys producing the same music and although it was followed by laughter, it is very relevant to this discussion … I once heard the incident of an Indian Actor recounting how a fan was bitterly disappointed after meeting him in person because of his not-so-handsome looks. Has this ever happened to you that you were quite disappointed on seeing the author’s picture after reading their book? Idk but it has happened to me. So privatization actually does much harm in these respects but how can we separate the two, it is perhaps too difficult!!
I completely agree with you. While BTS has many genuine fans, they wouldn't have as much popularity if they weren't good looking. Their personalities add to it too, which is a majority of kpop. There's plenty of mediocre music that blows up in kpop because of 1) the idols themselves (i.e the fans like the idols so they like every song the idol creates) 2) how the idol looks. Like zimzalabimzim, war of hormone, next level are some incredibly average songs,yet the fans treat them as if they're masterpieces. I've also noticed, a band named enhypen had stans even BEFORE they released any music,i remember reading comments saying "I'm so ready to stan enhypen" Basically,persona comes first. Even in the case of enhypen, their basic personas and profiles were released to the public before any music, which resulted in the formation of cult like fans who don't even know if the music is going to be good. These fans prepare to emotionally attach themselves to these personas, and when the debut is finally released,they hype it up. Music is secondary,looks and persona comes first. It's okay for the singer themselves to be average (jennie can hardly sing or rap,she's not particularly talented) as long as they have a good persona. I personally don't factor in looks when looking for artists, or when forming a sort of connection to the artist. But a lot of fans of kpop are younger kids, and physical attraction is new and very important to them. I was like that as a kid. I literally remember praying to God for harry Styles to have a bloody son who looks like him just so I could marry him. Pls don't judge me I was 9.
also, I'm Indian and curious how could a fan want to meet an actor without having seen him? Like they wanted to meet someone whose movies they haven't even seen?
@@mcchilde2903 the last thing had me lmao 😂, I was similar to this when I first got into kpop and that enhypen thing is soooo true and tbh why I left (consciously) all fandoms was because of this thirsting over artists which is huge Thanks for such a long and meaningful reply
spot on, as an artist, I'm drained away trough marketing/creative thinking. I'm not ready to compromise art, and my work, just to have more income, or better reputation, or whatever ... or I wouldn't be an artist, and my work wouldn't be art. But it's a very rough ride, to keep my work as pure as possible though. It demands so much sacrifices that almost no one, understandably, does it any more ... (every field is being marketed away nowadays, away from it's beautiful core element)
I'm watching the video instead of working on my thesis proposal, no regrets. Great video! I think the ideas of sir Ken Robinson about creative schools will gel well with your solution.
@@AliceCappelle Wonderful! Your Content keeps getting better with time. Thanks a lot, it means a lot coming from you. I think I'm gonna put this in my CV "famous TH-camr replied to comment"
The first quote hit me hard, in a good way! Very interesting subject but I'm a bit conflicted about it, since I feel that artists that were free to use their times to create and be idle, have always been a minority. Musicians, dramatists and painters flourished at the Medici court as well as during Louis the 14th's reign because they had wealthy, influential patrons that could protect and fund them, but also control their works (Louis the 14th, for one, was not shy on censoring what he did not like). Years later, Balzac wrote most of his novels to pay off his debts, in a hurriedly and unvarnished way. Maybe he would have written better books, had he been funded by somebody, and maybe not. Maybe living solely for one's art can also in the end kill one's creativity, by making us distance from 'normal people's lives and struggles? (I believe Sally Rooney mentions this in her new book but haven't read it yet!) I would say it has probably never been as easy to be an artist as it is today but there are definitely way more people trying it and thus, much more competition. Also, I do agree that the pressure artists feel today can be of a different sort, with social networks especially, and that things could still be done to improve their situations.
The fact that you had to be in a Guild to create, women mostly weren't allowed (not even into the Royal Academy ) and you were told to paint religious scenes, portraits, whatever the patron wanted, you didn't have free expression or could afford materials. You are correct , it's never been easier to study art (thanks youtube!) or make whatever you want to, just not guaranteed a career in it.
One name that always comes to mind as the archetypal artist is Prince. He encapsulated the whole publicity image that artists have today, but beyond that, in the background, he was also the ultimate artist in terms of prodigiousness, diversity and work ethic. In my opinion Prince is an impossibility that is going to be very difficult to see another artist reach.
your videos are so stunning ... so incredibly thoughtful and thought-inducing. thank you for this!! I think about this a lot when creating videos and uploading them to youtube, which is definitely ran by 'creative entrepreneurs' > 'creatives' themselves
I do believe that creativity is a birth right- it's actually the core thing that makes us humans different from other species of animals- we make things! It's just our perception of what we deem "creative," limiting it to artwork and self expression, that can stop us from identifying as an inherently creative person, and also goes along with the intense pressure we put on ourselves to "be creative." We're actually creative all the time! We create our selves, our lives and our experiences, every single moment of the day with the communication we have with ourselves and others. We do have influence of our reality through our creativity and we gain more influence just by identifying as a creative person. It changes how we move through life, it connects us to our power, purpose and pleasure, but often stems from our pain and our problems, our feelings and presence. This is how we grow and evolve individually as people, but also how to find our unique position and perspective that we can share with others, which does have the opportunity to become profit for us if there's the interest and intent to be persistent, patient, present creating a product that transforms, informs or influences people's perception of themselves somehow. Follow your interests but don't put so much pressure on yourself to do anything with it. Value and validate yourself, your experiences, especially the hard ones, and all the things you're fascinated with. Find the nuances in life that draw you in. The work of the artist is to connect the dots between it all and create the meaning and change you'd like from it. Or to choose to create no meaning or change at all. It's up to you; you're the creator! This was a wonderfully thought provoking video, Alice! Beautifully done!
this is so inspiring! I really do not know though about the story of the free artist... Artists like bach and mozart did have to produce for rich people. Beethoven famously hated producing requested pieces, but did have to do it for money anyway. Artists always had to bend to the will of oligarchy and even who became famous was connected to who you and more importantly your family knew. the only way out of poverty used to be through religious studies (vivaldi). Sooooo I guess you did have a smaller space to network in, but is that really a positive if this space is STILL only accessible to the rich? I wanna add that I DO love your point about arts in educatiion!
I believe the first thing, the surface of this theme if I would talk about it, "the death of the artist", would be the death of connection. And with "connection" I mean analysis, analysis of self, and analysis of whatever the mind finds and is attracted to. Things becoming virtual/automated (interaction, consumption, discussion, etc) make creativity less enriched because a like on my work doesn't have a face, it doesn't give me a hug, it doesn't shake my hand, it doesn't make a silent face I can treasure in the future, etc. Another thing that helped kill connection would be the fragmentation of the creative community, makers and consumers, into their genders, races, political identities, sexual existences, ethnic backgrounds and so on. When I am here and I like your video and I give you a compliment on the video, all of that falls into scrutiny, my genuine appreciation becomes something else, and connection becomes lost. In the same way, a woman who might understand little to nothing about the content of your video gives you a like and a compliment, but now the disconnection is intellectual while the connection is now empathic. A final thing we could consider as a loss of connection could be the social class differences where sometimes someone has a lot to say, a lot of knowledge, but the knowledge is trapped within a social class type of language or within a social class political concept ("they would never understand" and things of the sort) and connection, again, is lost. The second thing, to me, would be anti-intellectualism and how it corrupted the understanding of the possible formats of art and its discourse. Social media brought a format that would be the "no format" format, where the content is irrelevant because people are buying and consuming the person delivering the content. Kinda similar to the idea of the "aura" of the artist, where the criteria for what this said artist creates is irrelevant, and it only matters that that person made it. Most people who consume Savannah's content are not consuming the content, are consuming her, looking at her and just drooling over the way the light hits her face and blah blah blah, and that is ok. The problem with that is not that she is doing it, but that there is not an understanding that what she does is one of many formats, because no one talks or thinks about the formats that are possible, not even explore possible new formats. Whatever is working, is producing views and subscribers, and followers, that becomes the format, without being an actual format. Sadly, the same way this "no format" format dictates social media it began to dictate art, and a bunch of scribblings are now being sold as illustrations, fingers tapping on simple midi mixers become music, and it mostly stops there because sculptures are expensive af to make, theatrical plays and movies as well. People suggested tiktoks were running for awards, and that is totally fine, but you know some people say they should win Oscars. People who suggest that are usually the people who might watch Savannah, with their k-pop idol profile pictures and etc. The rejection of formats would be what kills art because things have meaning, there is proportion, composition, symbolism, aesthetic choices, among other aspects. People don't want to rise to the level of the product, they want the product to be them. It's like the ultimate form of aggressive marketing where the product is not sold as "for you", but as "you". Lastly, the problem would have a final nail on its coffin called "lack of definitions". What is art? What is an artist? What are the levels of artistic expression on a financial marketing scale? The hardest art to sell is high art or self-referential art because it has a very low connection value, so it is hard to sell as "for someone" because it feels too specific. High art would be art that is too profound, too rooted in classical references of historical art pieces, so it requires a deep level of understanding of art. Self-referential art is too profound in the other direction, it explores a side of the artist, a memory, a personal belief that doesn't justify itself, etc. Then there is concept art, which is high art but less nerdy, we could say, so people get it. Then there is commercial art, which is just cute, colorful, creative, innovative, or made by someone who has a parent that is very respected in the art world so automatically they become artists as well. Or maybe it is someone who established themselves in one art form then they decide to explore another art form, and then they just get a vernissage just like that, they just get a record deal just like that. After that, we have craftsmanship, which is the technique without the complexity of using the technique as language. A painting that is just an image, a portrait that is just a portrait, without the objective of expressing anything with the strokes of the pencil. After that, we have social media art, commissions, that is different than "commercial art" because the person who pays for it is not a company, but an individual. But likely with commercial art, commissions also end up with a lot of pornographic content. Lastly we have these people who claim to be artists, but are not, and sell themselves as the art, like Savannah who maybe sells herself as a muse, as someone who inspires others in different ways, be it for trying to be someone who also gets the same interaction from posts, the same numbers; be it for inspiring others to be her, even though the desire of being her is just insecurity speaking. So there is no artist, there is no art, there is nothing, only the immaturity of whoever consumes them. People should self-help themselves into better content. Thanks for reading. Cool video. Very good editing using different moments in time and different angles, it helps keep the video more dynamic.
The most valuable function of art is to ask questions. Not to answer questions. And the better the artist, the more incisive and valuable are his/her questions. Today art is being sold as an answer, which corrupts it.
This may seem strange but in a way, I see Lana Del Rey as a "true" artist. She writes her own songs and her albums and music have changed over the years despite many people disliking her changes. She also has a slightly confusing and problematic social media presence. In ways, she seems to live in her own world which is something I really appreciate.
Or actually our wonderful french comrade has posted... we're not fans of the monarchy here 😂 anyway, loved the video. The transition away from artist to creative entrepreneur, and the importance of contacts, is such an interesting topic.
Its something filmmakers have to consider too. The business in filmmaking is what makes it survive and thrive, and unfortunately not so great movies come from this mindset and we cant blame the filmmakers at all. I personally mourned when I have realized this, but I stopped becoming bitter when I accepted that that is just the way it is,
For those who are interested to learn about how these kind of questions also apply to the video game industry, I highly suggest "Digital Play" by Stephen Kline, Nick Dyer-Witheford and Greig De Peuter
I had a discussion with my wife this weekend and we talked about this exact subject. How is the "trivialization" of this type of individualistic (or that function as a mirror of ones own individuality, exclusively) materials thought to be art through social media is impacting art production. And what are the social implications of it. Very good video, interesting discussion!
As a writer and unpublished author I’m worried because of this. I already constantly compare my book with much more established authors and feel like I need to constantly be entertaining/relatable if I want to even make a pinch of that success and honestly it can feel quite draining having to entertain all the time :/
Interesting post, Ms Cappelle, but a whole video about art and creativity, meritocracy and class and nothing about Inspiration? Maybe, that is why the artist is dying? I think Art is about passion and feeling and my response to what I see, feel, hear and how they inspire me. Shared interests inspire a collective. It strikes me Art has become a popular brand that is defined by how much one makes. Van Gogh died a pauper, always celebrated and financially carried by his brother, Vincent. Maybe the reality is we all need an income, Universal or Guaranteed, rather than this idea all work can be an immediate investment, or income. Van Gogh's genius wasn't revealed till after he died.
thank you for posting the quote of Cecilia Meireles, its so good to see our brazilian writers getting the attention they deserve, also I fucking love Syvia Plath.
In Mark Manson's defense, he has qualities that any good author requires. His writing draws you in, is entertaining and darkly humorous. Albeit not the genius of Nabokov or Sylvia Path, very few are, which is why they have stood the test of time.
Hello Alice this is such a beautiful video! Yes everything has become about churning nowadays, there is competition on performing a certain way in areas which aren't meant be taken that way. Another thing that confuses me a lot is how people have started setting standards for the number of books one reads in a given year, as an avid reader since a child (I'm still young) books are meant to be enjoyed (even non fiction), not counted as achievements
I think it's the first time I comment on this channel but I would like to tell you that I really like your videos It always makes me think about things I normally wouldn't and I love it!
I can be called a 3d Artist, i do 3d animation and sculpture. I want to do what i want but at the same time i do want to earn money. And we always have to balance those things. And the best advice that can be apllied is to do personal project (besides of what I do for a company and have salary for) and build a portfolio out of my creative works. Then clients will ask do design soething for them based on that. That is how you break the circle, by continusly doing work first and then sell that style or idea to the market. And yes you have to not just an artist and knowing your craft you have to know how to sell it (or pay someone to do so). That is why social media is a great tool
Your interpretation resonates to me: Age 79 I was TKO'd by a BMW and shouldn't have lived. To that point I'd tried futilely to grasp ALL THE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS. Since, with reduced options available I can no longer try to account for every interpretive possibility. A tough lesson I DON'T RECOMMEND but reassuring nonetheless. Thanks, Alice :)
But, if someone is making art for the love of making art, then why should they worry about their success in the market? Emily Dickinson hardly made any money from her poems. She apparently even refused compensation. That didn't stop her from writing poetry because she was doing it for the love of the craft. Social trends and marketing tactics only become a burden when your goal is to make money and gain recognition from it. And I feel like many artists who make the critiques you made in this video are being dishonest by not admitting that they want to make a bunch of money and garner a bunch of attention because admitting that would contradict the "struggling artist making art for the love of it not for the fame and fortune" persona. Many of the most cherished artists in history had no reason to expect that more than 100 people would read their work. But they did it anyway. If you genuinely love making art, then make it. But I don't know if getting disappointed when the market doesn't reward you for your art is useful. The market is made up of human beings who choose what they want to choose. You can't force people to pay attention to your work.
Because times are different. The attention economy is much more competitive now then it has ever been. In a world where social media and apps do all they can to steal your attention, if you don't adopt similar tactics in your art, the majority of people won't pay enough attention to it to engage with it meaningfully. And with so much being produced every single day (much more than it was ever produced), it's much easier for your art to get lost in the crowd for eternity, just because it wasn't chosen by 'the algorithm'. Marketing of art, therefore, is necessary for the reach of it. Or maybe not. I haven't settled in an opinion yet, but I think these things can't be ignored in a discussion about this.
agree, you can do it as a hobby, post online if needed and if u make money off it by printing some of it on a shirt or selling costumed item, great! but if not? you still have a fun hobby.
I'm a painter and have thought about this topic A LOT (marketability, death of the author and such). "Making it" in the art world does take a level of quality (as in making genuinely interesting, thoughtful art), but that once your reach that point of quality, it's kinda down to luck: meeting the right curators or gallerists, or making the right kind of art at the right time (being marketable). With my chances of "success" being so slim, I've had to remind myself again and again why I got into painting in the first place, which is: painting itself, nothing more, nothing less. Don't get me wrong though, I'd love to make a living painting full time, but if that means painting things to suit the market, I'll pass. I'd rather work another job, paint less but paint what's honest to me :)
I feel this on a strong level. Whenever I say I write, people almost religiously (not that they know the true definition of the word religion or ever have a thought-provoking thought on their own) ask me: (When) will you publish it? As if they want to ask: when will you make money from it? As if they don't understand anything could be done other than means of plain basic survival and the monetary contributions that lead to it. But maybe this is too harsh a thought on the current society and age, maybe people were just like that before. Either way, true artists are the ones who don't do it for monetary value. Nothing changed. Everyone else we call a con-artist - they might have a skill but that's not a real artist. A con-artist writing books running after money produces only kitch to the real art of an artist. However I also do acknowledge it's terrible to suffer from that expectation that people will expect a similar content or output from you, it limits me too. So in the words of Marcus Aurelius: better to create and not expect anything at all. Better to not create for an audience. That leads away from the path.
Had a course about Shakespeare today and how relevant his works were. The fact that his plays were entertaining both educated people and lower classes was phenomenal. It was the democratisation of intellectual entertainment in a way, like very complex movies and TV shows today. It reminded me of your video, such an interesting one and what a coincidence! Continue, j’adore ❤️ And I agree completely on the fact that national education should emphasise the importance of art (in all its forms) in schools, as creativity should be more valued, because without art and creativity, life would be so dull. Car comme disait Nietzsche : “L’Art nous est donné pour nous empêcher de mourir de la vérité.”
In my country, we have public music schooling and it's such a great concept. For about 15euros per month, your child gets instrument and music theory classes 2x a week. Later, they get other subjects like choir, chamber music, harmony, counterpoint etc. Primary music school lasts 6 and the high school 4 years. So basically, an average kid who finishes both schools ends up with 10 years of systematic music schooling at the age of 18. These schools produce professional musicians, who later go to study at music academies, but they educate future audiences as well, which i think is very important. Lol unfortunately, classical music scene is at the same time very weak, because of the bad political situation. And everything is going in the direction of imitating America and western european countires. Also expensive private music classes, which are objectively worse, are gaining popularity. because if you pay more, it must be better amirite??? I hope music schooling won't become very elitist again.
@@pennryan970 I am talking about Croatia and other Balkan countries. (Mostly ex-yugoslavia, music schools were established during the communist regime) i think Poland and some other countries have basically the same system. you'd be surpised to hear that Austrian and German music schooling doesn't really work like that. Yes, there are music schools, but they usually don't have same curriculum all over the country. So each school kinda works a bit differently. In croatia, all schools work the same Also, there are more schools and the general standard in music school is higher: more subjects, more classes per week, more projects etc.
One element not raised to the discussion is how much physical attraction contributes to the success of the creative. It’s only natural for folk to pay more attention to pretty people, but in an arena where art/content is flooded, popularity comes sometimes not so much through the art or content itself as much as who is the creator. The art is no longer the art but the presentation/presenter of the art. And when success depends on attraction, that one needs to in some way pander to their audience in some way, then you see where some compromises come in maintaining a steady income through the content.
I think that's what she meant by saying that people often see art through persona. Thus attractive people are more popular because of their "pretty privilege".
true!
"Talent belongs to the beautiful". After years of binding the musical package with the presentation (music videos, the artist themselves etc), it is true that we have been led to believe that "talent belongs to the beautiful".
I think it is generally accepted that Elvis was one of the first artists to have their appearance marketed alongside the music, with the Beatles being sold on music first as a typical comparison
The way I see it, it‘ll be easier to understand the concept of art when you carefully study some posthumous works of this topic).
@@TheRedstoneWeb Now this is something I wanna argue about! Lol! Kinda sorta about the Beatles. For one thing Beatlesmania jumped up well after the success of other pretty big artists, like Johnny Cash, but the Beatles obviously became way bigger. But they also had a counter culture appeal. Their music was fresh, but even their bad long hair look caused rabble rabble rabble. Only their looks weren’t measured in the same way as Elvis, more applauded for looking rebellious than genuinely handsome like Elvis. Same with Cash: his music is fantastic, wasn’t a pretty boy, but he also gave himself the image of an outlaw…… So I guess what I’m rambling about (lol) is that picking the late ‘50s/early ‘60s is a bad spot to suggest musicians then didn’t benefit from having a certain look.
Being an artist is tough. I try to market myself on social media, but I’m a very private person. Sometimes it feels like you have to show so much of yourself to get a response. It sucks.
because they have a morbid fascination with that seeing and enjoying peoples lives. In the past only famous people had to deal with it now everyone has to deal with it unless you dont use social media but if you dont then you dont exist
That's why I don't want to make art a career.
@@bunnyteeth365 yes exactly. I feel like art is the only escape from my day to day life if needed. If I make it my career it becomes mandatory, I have to deliver it, on point, every day, I would have to marked it on social media, everyday to satisfy the algorithm and the audience. What have I left to escape to then?
@@pinkbluepanter2374 I just can't be consistently creative. I'd rather have a more reliable job.I feel like you have to be super passionate about art and not much else to be a career artist. I have other interests that are more likely to lead to a career, so I'd rather go for those.
This is literally why I have no drive to make any career out of creativity anymore. Which has only made my creativity more and more insulated and primarily personally relevant. It's just a long inaccessible conversation with myself at this point
I think we killed creativity when we started to commodify art, when we made it a tangible thing with guidelines of what constitutes as valuable or worthless, we turned the experience into a product for consumption.
For anyone that wants to make money off of their art, art has always been a product for consumption. We live in such an interesting time of far reaching connectivity, where anyone wanting to be heard and seen has to compete for an audience.
Art was always commodified .
When people started selling their art on instagram
I feel like the tumblr era was a huge part of speeding this up. It was already happening for decades but tumblr made it easy for anyone to make money from their talents if they posted often enough.
So many of your takes are so good dude-
You are not being too idealistic. I once had an argument with someone where he said that "if enough people enjoy the work (music) then it is great art." but then I wanted to ask, where is the line between art and entertainment? or do they mean the same thing? And if someone makes good art but doesn't have the network to carry it, does that make it bad?
Good point !
Omg, thats just too much logic for some people, lol.
i think the point becomes moot when you consider the philosophy of aesthetics. aesthetics surround us, and aren’t limited to the chassis of “traditional” art. it’s also entirely subjective, since art cannot exist outside of bias (individual perception). art has many mediums, and can exist in and out of traditional mediums. having said that, i think “creatives” use art to create products. the rejection of capital and productizing your art creates this sort of tunnel vision to your art. it’s romantic to limit art to this domain, it’s just not accurate, imo. entertainment is just a fucked up bundle of art, products, weird psychological tricks to garner attention, etc.
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
I think this why the word "Underrated" was created. Whatever is below that line just throw the word underrated to appreciate the the lesser known art.
I remember Dr. Dre said something about social media sapping the mystique of the artist. It hits different when you can experience someone's art without knowing what they're doing every waking moment
I wonder if he was talking about Eminem with the whole mystique thing. Since no one really knew Em was white when he came out.
Here's to a world in which no one has to articulate their cool ideas in any way that has to factor in demonetization!
Gosh I wish...
@@AliceCappelle There was a time when studios used to value movies as a higher form of art, and artists like most directors those days used to work tirelessly for l'art pour l'art. Now there are only few and even though they are trying to maintain their integrity in this world, it is tough to present art which doesn't make money. Many Indie Films are shadowed and never shown as such to the audience or marketed poorly to them, the age of art in filmmaking is barely surviving and most can't make it through. Can't blame many, you know, Art doesn't pay the bills.
Stop complaining and go private there are many books that teach you how to create your own production houses and self finance your idea through mass persuasion. Don't like the game create your own social medias, your own Disney's Warner Bros etc the power is in your hands stop waiting for hand outs no one will save you but you so be like an exploit the fact people are starving some good art and charge through the roof mercilessly
@@getsmartquick
Yes your name and comment suggests everything needed to know on how much you have grown by your bootstraps in your life
It sounds cringey but I was watching an episode of Psycho-Pass the anime in which they were discussing the phenomenon of people becoming icons. One of the character’s argument was that icons rarely become revered because of their own creativity but rather because people buy into the character and raise them up on a pedestal. So basically the audience created the celebrity instead of the celebrity garnering an audience
There is nothing cringey about psycho fucking pass
Psycho~Pass is an ideological, often discussed, masterpiece. Dude.
"Our inability to live entirely in the present ( like most animals do ) combined with our inability to see far into the future, make us strange in-between creatures. Neither beast nor prophet."
-Arundhati Roy
Field notes on democracy
I'm assuming you mean "prophet", but those words come up together more often than I'd like.
This covers most of my feelings around making my art a ‘career’ that I hadn’t fully articulated. The whole idea of branding or marketing my work is really unappealing to me, and not just because of my poor social skills lol
I care more about my art reaching people than making money off of it so I use social media, but there’s only so far you can reach without playing into marketing/trends and whatnot. It can really affect how you value your work & effort, but I am trying not to do that so much.
I have a similar experience. I´ve always enjoyed sewing and making my own clothes, and people always asked me if I was gonna study fashion/industrial design, but really I just enjoy making things for myself without pressure. Why does the thing you love to do have to be marekteable?
With that being said that´s why I prefered to study something a little more profitable and leave the sewing for my free time.
@@luisaagudelo7782 I, too, am in this boat. I started making jewellery when I was in high school, because I wanted more earrings and rings to wear, and instead of spending money to buy, I could just make them with the beads and wire I already had. And people kept asking me if gonna sell them/become a jeweller and make a business. That's not something that I had in mind. I just made them cuz I felt like it, and it was fun to do. But nowadays, whatever hobbies we have, whether it be making jewellery, making clothes, creating art, it is highly encouraged to begin monetizing our hobbies, and it can eventually take the joy out of doing them in the first place as a form of expression, and just because you felt like it. I'm now in college for Illustration, and Ive decided to take a break, step back, and actually think about what I'm doing, and I'm leaning more towards creating art as a hobby, and study something that I will make money from and is applicable in society.
Then start a business like an app or something. Once you make a billion or million then freely give your art
As a writer who's just starting, and trying to figure out whether I should create a niche or a persona, or "learn the ropes" before making stuff for myself, this video was an eye-opener. It's important to remember why I started writing. To have fun.
Good luck with the writing, mate.
Same! I have no idea what to do.
Yeah saddly the priviliged people mostly are the ones that found themselves more capable of doing art or hobbies related to it, the struggle people, the hardworking class, simply don't have time for it. The priviliged ones are the one that makes most of the content we consume daily; for example: movies. If you think about it doing art is one of the greatest way of rebel against the inequities of life, so if you find yourself, (no matter the situation you are), eager to express, do it. Even if just reach a few people, it's for the good of all of us.
Universal Basic Income!! Utopia for realisists is a good read kinda related to this
the privileged ones? you have a very outdated, woe is me mindset. People sacrifice a lot of things to do what they love. LOL. if you can't do it, don't call the ones who do privileged. Some people maybe, but not everyone.
@@redefinedliving5974 exactlyyyy im seeing all these comments calling pple who have made something of themselves in that industry privileged some of these people started at the very bottom and some only became beautiful after they gained money and were put under so much pressure by pple in the society themselves to look that way since pple are using that in their defence .
@@justimani4 dude you missed the point. Privileged here means people who actually didn't have to struggle with money and ACTUALLY had TIME to be creative or otherwise experiment with art, unlike the people who work extremely hard jobs. Especially manual labor who have no time for it.
@@mcchilde2903 yah but most pple are making it seem like everyone who has made it in the industry had all these privileges which is really not true for a lot of artists out there, there's pple who started with nothing working multiple jobs and had to work to get the equipment they needed to get recognised and fortunately enough pple loved what they made even with those little resources and they grew and others invested into them
One other point I like to mention about the marketization and privatization of art is how it is very oriented towards the eurocentric ideal. In my country, at least, a lot of the art I've seen nowadays are following the western aesthetic which is considered "more pleasing" to the eye, more "modern", and more marketable. A lot of young artists follow this ideal and hence, the culture of art in my country could slowly lose its grip on their identity roots and heritage.
Why don’t you listen to some ‚classical‘ pieces of art to expand your knowledge?
eurocentric ideal???
you should make a video about it! as westerners we don't really understand or think about that
There's a whole genre of TH-cam videos with titles like "How I Make Six Figures As an Artist" and they are incredibly depressing. Basically you need to make art, yes, but also manage several social media accounts, make prints and stickers, do shipping, make TH-cam videos, engage with your followers, all while replicating the most overdone, inoffensive, commercial illustration styles on every Millennial soccer mom's Pinterest feed.
I feel like that thinking would just replace commercialization of art to just pandering pretentiousness or offensive for the sake of being offensive. After all something was mainstream used to be obscure.
So while something popular doesn't make it perfect or good, hating on something popular doesn't make you superior
and even if you do all that the chances of you making enough to make ends meet is laughably small anyway
"An artist must never be a prisoner. Prisoner? A prisoner of himself, prisoner of style, prisoner of reputation, prisoner of success etc." ~ Henri Matisse
As someone that is currently having the opportunity and privilege to make a music album with some great musicians and facilities, I have to share/ point out how small of an artist I feel and how little of myself artistically I have discovered, in contrast of how much marketable I have to be. I am not blaming anyone for it involved in the current project, or even myself, I'm just doing what most of us bands are doing and trying to hold on to the profitable recognition of the hours of work we have spent in a network we are trying to join or sometimes build with great amounts of effort, neglecting effort that could go into an more in depth artistic discovery of ourselves and the art we are making
Thank you so much for this video and for sharing and exploring such an important topic
Hollllyyyy shiiiit I am in the process of getting to where you are and I want to give you props and sparkles for this!
I have had a huge writers block because “I don’t know who my audience is” basically I’m thinking about how I’ll market myself before I’ve literally written anything
Well, to be honest it takes TIME and dedication to discover yourself. I think nowadays we need to make money (duh, capitalism) so when you choose to go the professional creative path, it is normal to go through that double path : a part of marketable enter the existing system and then another part where you are working for yourself.
EVERY photographer went through this, a lot of painters we adore too.
When I first entered college I had plans to become a level designer for video games but instead changed my mind to pursue art as I fell in love with the work I was creating. I felt like a Matisse looking at his painting in awe at his own talent. I recently was Commissioned by my aunt to create an artwork for her friend and I created an amazing (in my opinion) drawing that she rejected. To be honest, I felt defeated because the drawing they showed me that inspired them to commission me was a computer artwork designed to be simple and non-offensive. The fact that my aunt's friend liked that artwork over my own really hurt me. I put relative symbolism and heart into the drawing. My art style is inspired by the German expressionists of the early nineteenth century so I semi-understand why they might raise an eyebrow because it's not "whimsical" and "cute enough" but I truly do not want to do the art style that I see many people doing. I watch a lot of TH-cam artists and their works to me seem almost the same. The color pallette, the design, it's too conveyor belt for me. They're not bad, they're just not what I feel I need to do. Expressionism is an art style that is controversial and many times looked down upon but I love it because it allows me to express myself in various ways. I am a socialist artist who doesn't want to become another cog in the machine but the machine is way too powerful to fight against.
Thank you for your content! In my perspective, many people are somewhat losing the ability to see, understand or appreciate art. Art is something that has to be consumed slowly, it needs time to be digested. But the world we live in keeps moving at a faster and faster pace, leaving less and less space to dwell on the message that anything artistic is trying to convey. But also the massive increase of content leave many people with the sense of wanting more and faster, caring little about the authenticity of what they are to consume - caring more about being simply entertained. Creativity will always be every where making it nearly impossible to be killed but the way we choose to put it out into the world/react to it is definitely changing the dynamics between being an artist and creating meaningful art.
completely agree. i think about that a lot and it makes me really sad, when will we slow down?
This is so interesting... and depressing! As someone who writes songs and posts them online I've long had to realise that I'll never be able to make a career out of what I love bc I wouldn't be able to make the change between simply 'artist' and 'creative entrepreneur'.
J'adore tes videos et tu t'exprimes tellement bien, c'est toujours intéressant de voir quelque chose bien recherchée et intelligente comme ça ❤️
You don't realize how much ahead you are in the game. Most people can't even bring themselves to create, let alone post their art online. It takes immense courage to create anything in this world.
@@dinem4624 that's so encouraging, thank you so much :')
same, guys... i draw.. u could maybe drop a link to ur music:) network as it says:)
Keep making art!
@@magagama10000 I will!!
Most artists were dependent on their patronage since antiquity. So much of our favorite classic art served as PR for the patrons.
I wanted to copy nature but I couldn‘t. However, I was content with myself, as I discovered that the sun can not be imitaded, it has to be represented with something else... with colour. - Claude Monet
As someone who always wanted to make a living by making art this hit hard 😥 Trying to find a space in the ~*creative market*~ (those words should not be next to each other lol) while developing as an artist is so incredibly hard. Instead of growing by being exposed to art, you have to look at job opportunities and what pays, and tailor yourself to survive, while attempting to sacrifice as little as possible of your individuality. I'm very glad to see this discussed more, and I completely agree with the solution - I hope people realize that the market is killing the arts; it's been so discouraging watching people (especially established artists I've been following for many years) fall for the NFT scams, and I'm worried it will only get worse 😒
But artists willingly choose to participate in markets. They can choose to just be dedicated to mastering their craft. Great art can only be created when the artist is motivated by making great art, not by satisfying the market or to make money from it (although they can sometimes do both: make great art and satisfy the market). If you want to make art for the love of it, then why are you trying to find space in the "creative market"? If the answer is to make money, then you have to realize that markets are made up of people who buy what they feel like buying and sometimes those people might have terrible taste, but it's still their choice. You can't force people to be fans of your art.
@@kevincastellanos6328 The issue is that people need to make money in order to live. Without public institutional support for the arts, the only way artists are able to pay rent and buy groceries (let alone raise children etc) is by participating in the market were the will of consumers takes precedence over the quality and authentic creativity of the art. As the arts become less and less supported publicly, artists are more and more forced to become "creative entrepreneurs." Places like universities that historically have supported the arts and humanities have increasingly been cutting funding for such programs because they don't earn enough money, and in this current phase of society money has become the sole measure of social value.
@@Bronyboy123 I agree that people need to make money in order to live. And I'll entertain the idea of publicly funded institutions that allow artists to be paid enough to live financially stable lives so that they can focus on making meaningful art.
My main point is that if you want to distribute your art through the free market as a way of making a living, you can't complain about it when you don't succeed because the market is dictated by people who choose to pay for what they find worth paying for.
Go ahead and try to publicly fund artists. I have no idea how that will turn out. But leave the free market alone because trying to manipulate it so that it values “real art” is likely a dead end.
@@kevincastellanos6328 and why shouldn't I complain? Art is not created out of thin air - I need a place to live, food, and materials. If I choose to create art purely as a hobby I have to take a different job, which means my time to create will be limited, which means creating less and less people who see it. We don't "willingly participate in the market" when there's no other choice. It's work or starve.
@@ChodnikOgrodnik so you’re okay with complaining that people didn’t find your art good enough to pay attention to it? you can’t force people to like your work. and the idea that there is no other choice in the market of art is just not true. consumers have never had a wider range of art to choose from before.
Artists are still here, and art is most definitely not dead. Anyone who believes that is not trying very sincerely to find it. Additionally, making money or a career out of your art or creativity is not shameful and does not always lead to the “death” of the artist.
(Also - Emily Dickinson never “made it” during her life, either. She never made a living through her poetry. Most of her work was hidden from the public.)
I think you make some really good points, as always. But I wonder if 1) art was ever free of commercialisation and marketisation, before the age of “creative entrepreneurs” 2) if it there were always gatekeepers in the form of editors, commissioners etc
From history art was always a commodity and commercialisation was a part of it as well as gatekeepers. Van Gogh for example wasn't popular because he didn't put a lot of effort into his work, he was just not a entrepreneur and didn't conform to the standards of his time.Mozart as well. Bach in his times wasn't known widely mostly his home area, the guy who makes good music and couldn't get any stable job as a court musician, while Händel was a superstar. Most of us when seeing an old painting think this must be a great artist but nearly all of the time artist created something that sold well. The customers wanted something for their living room not a masterpiece.
I commend you for citing William Deresiewicz’s article as your inspiration for this video essay at the end. I just finished reading the article moments before I started watching your video and I was thinking to myself, ‘I hope she cites him’ and you did. I’ve seen too many video essayists outright steal content from articles and journals without giving credit to the author, and simply pass it off as their own ideas, which can be quite infuriating. So yeah, good job and great video!
It's just sad how certain groups of people believe that only they can trully undersrand real art and that they have the power to decide what true art is.
True art will find its way to the audience, but it's much harder to be seen, heard or read when some people are just blocking you.
You've made some great great points, excellent video! Just wanna shed light on the overestimation of how artists were valued in the past, and underestimation of the constraints upon them. For example:
Joseph Conrad was frustrated of the Victorian public trapping him into writing only nautical-at-sea novels, because only those novels would sell due to his persona as an ex-sailor Polish immigrant. The Great Gatsby was a commercial flop at the time because it didn't cater to mainstream taste. Even Shakespeare wrote women in disguise as men due to Puritan pressure to not have too many men actors in dresses or women characters behaving out of line (among other censors.)
Few artists have been free from mainstream trends + persona, and even fewer had their art recognized only because it was good. After the death of an artist, they are deified, and we have the habit of forgetting the unpleasant bits of their realities.
I'm so, so happy to have found your channel. You make me reconsider so many things about my life, that I always end up writing something in my journal after watching your videos!
Hey Alice, I found this a really interesting watch.
I believe you've read and quite like 'In Praise of Idleness' by Bertrand Russell. There are many artists that see the sublime in idleness as the cradle of cultural contemplation and reflection that is the soul of art such as Oscar Wilde- "To do nothing at all is the most difficult thing in the world, the most difficult and the most intellectual." He also wrote in his essay The Soul of Man under Socialism this - "The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible."
Wilde isn't justifying slavery, he is simply stating the inconvenient truth that great artists require a level of idleness not accessible for an extremely high percentage of people on the planet, I'd say 99% at a random guess, with you and I being Western, White and middle class easily in the top 1%. With the way the world has been conquered and colonised to serve the Western World we are certainly the slave masters, however fancy we dress it up. My point is not many successful artists have to work three jobs just to eat, and art has always been a cultural truth telling (or truth constructing) of the privileged.
So for me, if the artist has died in the modern paradigm how can you really argue they ever existed. Maybe privatisation and marketisation do kill an abstract idea of purity in art but the suggestion there is that this is a corrupting force that as swept into the arts and converted would be holy artists with pure souls into capitalists. Its not something I find convincing and is as I far as I can tell the logical extension of your thesis (please correct me where I'm wrong). It has always seemed to me that the majority of artists from over the ages have either been aristocracy like Wilde or have been entirely dependant on their support. Art has always been subservient to commerce and I don't see any paradigm shift there.
While maybe the internet has democratised taste, I think the bigger influence on the creative peoples and communities of this world has been in empowering everyone to be a nerd, to pursue their own little niche where there is only little interest within your local geography but enough of an audience globally. That's surely what has motivated you to post video essays on TH-cam.
"The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author." I think Barthes' idea has a strange aspiration to forget the author, as the authors existence is inescapable. For me the only people who understand the dilemma properly steer into the skid manipulate their persona as they do their art. This is the Savannah's, but its also the Oscar Wilde's with his outrageous public persona, you can see it in the Billie Eilishs and the Madonnas of the world too. Maybe music is harder to discuss because the visual of the 'author' is part of the creative dimension for sure. The idea that an authors persona limits interpretation and therefore creativity but the opposite is just as arguable.
Sorry for the essay, I found you're video very thought provoking and had to get all my thoughts out. Love your videos
I just read the fig analogy in the book I'm reading, "The midnight library" by Matt Haig. The whole book is about a woman who, between life and death, has the oppertunity to undo any regret she might have had in her life. I picked that book up purely because the summary on the back of the book sounded so promising. If you spend time thinking about regrets in your life or the fact that your life could've been so different from your current one I highly recommend this book. As always with Matt Haig there are loads of references to mental health and social media as well.
I Don't belive that creativity develops when You're exposed to art. I am a very creative person in the way that I Am always thinking of stories, characters, fantasy creatures and seeing art what really improves is my motivation towards making that a reality but not my creativity as that is something I develop just by living My day to day life. Anyway I really liked the video. Thank you for making this essays as they really motivate me to write down my thoughts and to think 😁
Compare a person who is creative but grew up with family who do no art and have no money to buy them and a person who's exposed to art at a very young age. this is almost always the case with wealthy kids who have fairly intelligent parents. they dont even have to be creative themselves/
mmm i could see your point i mean when we are little kids we are very creative in a way and we are still very young but i would say that a more interesting and articulated creativity if that makes sense develops when you are exposed to art. Everyone copies and we get ideas from that the more you see and understand in art the more you can play with it.
@@marceloaguirree not necessarily. it's true that it accelerates our progress and develop our sensibilities more. but time is of essence here, a person exposed to art might reach their peak at 30. but a person who experiences intergenerational poverty and has natural talent for it, and needs to work on surviving first, but do art when he can...might reach their peak at like around 60 and still continue growing...
@@redefinedliving5974 oh i was replying to the main comment. I see your point and i agree
A.I art has changed the game. You should revisit this subject.
I write novels that I want to tell and read, but without any ability to market it, I'd die when my creativity thrives
I think the death of the artist might be encapsuled in a B. Russell piece called "In praise of idleness". Essentially, if you work 9 to 5, it's pretty difficult to have enough downtime to be truly creative, or to find "inspiration" although he doesn't talk about that. The points he makes are best read in the article as I cannot hope to transmit everything or do the genius justice in such few words but that's more or less it in a nutshell.
Salut Alice! Je suis artiste (poétesse) et je me suis abonnée à ta chaîne il y a quelques mois. Merci pour cette vidéo. Tes analyses sociales sont, comme d'habitude, pertinentes et personnelles. Avec Shanspeare, tu es une de mes TH-camuses préférées. J'aimerais que tu fasses des vidéos en français de temps en temps (mais c'est comme tu veux, j'aime ton anglais aussi).
Il y a deux choses, toutefois, avec lesquelles je ne suis pas 100% d'accord:
1. Il n'y a pas nécessairement plus d'introvertis que d'extravertis parmi les artistes. Certes, les introvertis ont tendance à mieux se connaître eux-mêmes car ils passent plus de temps avec leur propre personne. Ainsi, ils créent des oeuvres d'art centrées sur les sentiments et la réflexion. Mais les extravertis sont tournés vers le monde extérieur et ce sont souvent eux qui, par exemple, écrivent des histoires palpitantes. Même si j'en fais partie, il faut en finir avec le mythe de l'artiste mystérieux! 😅
2. Je pense que nous sommes tous nés artistes et que la créativité est ancrée dans la nature humaine. Si nous faisions disparaître tout l'art et les adultes de la Terre, les enfants finiraient tous, un jour ou l'autre, par être touchés par la beauté de la nature et dessiner, chanter, etc.
Sur ce, je te souhaite beaucoup de bonheur et d'inspiration pour tes prochaines vidéos. 😀
I watch a lot of commentary TH-cam, and I have to say, few commentary creators are exploring as many unusual / unique commentary topics and angles as Alice. Thanks for always making us think!
I'm not sure it has anything to do with creative entrepreneurs. Since when would artists blame others for not creating? If they did, did they ask themselves what kind of sacrifice they made for their art?
I see one main reason Art is dying: human beings became shallow, impatient, lost and obsessed with social status ("I want everyone to see me as ____" -fill the blank with your favorite label). I myself am guilty of those flaws.
Do we ever take the time to observe, explore, introspect and create real art from scratch? Even if we did, would we accept that nobody recognizes our art but ourselves? Even if it had value, would anybody really take the time to contemplate it?
Btw, there is no art if there is no slowing down.
knew that i was sticking around as soon as the bell jar quote hit ✨
i used to detest the idea of being a professional artist because i didn't want an employer or audience or anyone but me + my desire to make decisions about my life...but then i realized that i would be doing art regardless of whether i had a side job or other responsibilities....so would i rather wake up at 4 am everyday to make time for everything or try the creative entrepreneurship ting?.....it's still for me. it's always going to be for me. but i guess other people can witness it as well
Has art ever been devoid of that marketisation? Especially during the time of Virginia Woolf. Dubliners by James Joyce was rejected by all 14 publishers based in Dublin at the time. When he wrote Portrait of the Artist - which was absolutely groundbreaking - he also couldn't get that published because it was so forward thinking. The only way he got it published was by his networking. He knew W.B. Yeats who put him in contact with Ezra Pound, who subsequently got it serialised. Then once again, after having made a name for himself, he struggled to be published. In the end he only got Ulysses published through knowing Sylvia Beach of Shakespeare and Company bookshop in Paris. Nobody wanted a novel that is sometimes lauded as the greatest of all time. Is today really so different? Detective novels, murder mysteries, and "smutt" books were much more likely to be published at the time. To me that sounds a lot like writing 2nd rate genre fiction to appeal to the market today.
I mean that is why the Woolfs set up the Hogarth Press. To have a printing press of their own. They refused to print Joyce’s Ulysses due to the fact they knew it would cause a scandal.
The widespread backlash to the ‘I don’t dream of labor’ videos was pretty irritating. It seemed as if no one was truly, genuinely attempting to articulate a criticism that felt sincere to them; rather, because it was a popular thing to do that guaranteed views (and money), most responses felt like hollow “gotcha!” moments in which the person invalidated the entire idea and refused to engage with any part of it in good faith, all so that they could smugly wag their finger and say “uh uh uh - you forgot to mention privilege 😏”
The art of rhetoric is, too, becoming more visibly profit-motivated and guided by what they audience wants to hear about, and specifically, what opinion they want to hear. Tee Noir’s channel is one of my favorites for a number of reasons, but I love how she purposefully creates videos that are meant to start a discussion (back when that phrase still meant something lol) and aren’t merely, in her words, “a conclusion factory.”
Anyways, I went to school for orchestral performance so good fucking luck to me ig 😅
As an artist, having to choose between self-actualizing and idk, STABILITY IN ALL ASPECTS was a hard choice for me but no regrets 🤧
thank u for these vids like always!
"the more you see art, the more creative you become" I have to respectively disagree, however admit that at one point I was also as idealistic about art. It's a cliche that "travel broadens the mind" but I've come to realise (after years of trying to convince myself otherwise) that not all minds have the potential to be broadened. The same also applies to creativity and by extension curiosity - there are a lot of people who would like to be creative, consider themselves artists and aspire to be creative individuals, but not everyone can be - and that's ok.
Why can’t they be
Exactly. Creativity is actually quite rare.
Ah, the nature vs. nurture debate! I think both of them have an influence...
I feel like seeing art has diminished my creativity rather it makes me want my art to resemble the art I saw, rather than wanting to come up with something on my own.
everyone is an artist. life is creative and so everyone is by default. is it expressed in the same exact way? no. but it’s not something for you or anyone to gatekeep
In my case, seeing art, paintings or listening to more music kills my inspiration. It kinda puts limits to my creativity or ideation process. The less I see, the more I'm able to create or ideate.
I think i can relate to this
been binge-watching so many of your video essays. thank you for inspiring me to learn again.
Thank you Alice for this video! It's so nice to hear an unarticulated thought come alive and explained in a video essay. One thing that I thought I'd add is neurodivergent thinking is highly linked to creativity. So, folks with ADHD tend to be more creative naturally on average (speaking from experience). But to your point, since art is so privatized, it crushes the "space" for neuro-divergent ideas because it's often not marketable yet.
You know it’s going to be a great video when it starts with a Sylvia Plah quote
This makes me think of Daft Punk somehow, they're amazing artists and have a deep love for the philosophical aspects of music making, but they also have a business mindset in that they own their own record label and all, for the sake of controlling their art without much influence from the music industry.
Their persona are interesting to think about too- they definitely have personas, but the robot outfits also afford a seperate, private life.
AND BTS :)
@@redefinedliving5974 nah
@@reneevandyk5022 Their robot "personas" are not personas. They have no character, they have no gesture, they are empty. They have been created soly for the purpose of making sure that anyone who listens to Daft Punk listen to Daft Punk because they like the music and not because they are influenced to liking the music by the person who made the music.
This is not just a problem in the world of art, but also in the world of fundamental science and that of philosophy, albeit without the aspect whereby one needs to "look the part" to succeed. This might be too pessimistic of a take, but I feel as though anything that does not return short-term gain is just outright neglected nowadays. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to people that mathematicians are not web devs, cryptographers, or engineers (I'm a mathematician), anf that we can not *just* do applied mathematics, because pretty soon we will run out of things to apply. This is not to mention how without pure mathematics, we will sooner or later run into the problem of not even understanding our tools well enough to apply them.
True mate.
this video made me think of the film "Work Without Author" I've watched for my philosophy class in college, it also talks about the creativity and artistic process in terms of different perspectives and societal structures, would recommend it
I actually like art that is individualized. Some should be especially if its the artists intent, or they dont mind it. Sometimes i think of the artist that wrote it as a character in the story, or their own experiences that i cannot directly relate to but feel more meaningful when i separate it from myself and see it as their story they are telling me.
I used to avoid some of Taylor Swifts songs because they lack relatability for me. A lot of them are about very specific romance stories which i dont really relate to. But when i saw it as her story, and listened to it that way i found that i enjoy it so much more. I admired her vunerability and the way she described her own experience, which inspired me to write my own stories, worring less about relateability and how it could still be enjoyable to those who dont relate so i dont have to worry about being "relatable" to succeed n gathering a substantial audience.
I really like hearing your perspective. I agree that privatization often isn’t conducive to creativity, however, I generally disagree with much of your framing. Your framing of “we’re killing creativity” seams to imply to me that society’s creativity comes specifically from people who work creatively driven jobs. Although you touch on the “democratization” of art, I feel that your points ignore the expanded opportunities for creativity that technology society helps provide. Technology and a lot of modern perspectives really help open the door to more casual creativity. Even running with the idea that societal creativity starts with those who follow creative pursuits as a career, I feel that your video looked too kindly on the art of the past. Art has rarely been a lucrative field, the stereotype of the starving artist exists for a reason. People who manage a lucrative or even sustainable career as an artist do, and have almost always done, so because they’re creating something that people want. On top of that, class and access have regularly curbed the abilities of some people to be as creative as they potentially could be. Thanks for the video, I really enjoyed watching it.
Creative entrepreneurship have always existed with artists being photographer medium. Cave paintings served as a form storytelling lessons to younger generations to improve hunting
All art now is used just to launder money especially with E art
@Mr. Boendoes Which part?
@@gracefire9067 During that time men only thought of 3 things
Meat
Honey
Water
That's it and stories of brave men who found better meat and honey
@@gracefire9067 Those complex emotions came after but original thought was only meat, honey, water. Current remote villages who still hunt have identical feelings for food and only food.
You are a product of generations of humans trying to find food.
@@gracefire9067 Art is a tool for survival that's why it exists. Subconsciously we are made to enjoy art because the stories they tell.
You are over thinking the human species more than animals who want more than meat, honey and water
Hmmm…I dont know how I feel about this video. I’m a writer and honestly I don’t think there has ever been a better time to be an artist just due to the fact that you *can* make money relatively easily. Also this idea about constraints surrounding pleasing other people/editors isnt new. Emily Dickinson wrote in her diary about this same concept calling it all “too much and not the mood” bc she was tired of having to write for other people. I dont know…I understand where people are coming from but the fact that being an artist is a real career that so many people can pursue is incredible to me. Think about all of the starving artists from the past hundred years who were geniuses in their own right and history will never know them simply bc they did not have the network or luck that others had. Everything is in our hands right now and its really like a new renaissance. No hate whatsoever. Well put together video and I always love how you convey messages/ideas but I had a few thoughts on this one.
Love your comment, we have more opportunities now for people to enjoy our work than ever before. We just need UBI to provide a stable base for artists to stand on!
as a brazilian, I''m honored for you to metion Cecilia Meireles
como brasileiro devo dizer que é só uma garotinha burguesa reclamando que a arte "de mercado" não discute as coisas que ela queria que fossem discutidas e que são as coisas que ela aprendeu nas aulas dela sobre literatura critica moderna srsrs..mas tem pontos interessantes nesse ensaio dela....apesar da falta de realismo pratico imediato do argumento dela ...ela ta muito heurística..falta uma epistemologia pra dar sustância rs
Just found this channel. Fantastic. This video is such a breath of fresh air. I was an adjunct for two years, in philosophy. Quit and left academia because of all you say here. In the U.S., the situation is awful. Succeeding as a non STEM academic is impossible without being an entrepreneur.
I was actually hypothesizing recently for some time as to why people are all crazy after music esp. kpop artists (not kpop itself really and also it’s a wonderful sub division of pop music, no debates on that) and I realized that these music companies take a billion cares to prettify the idol and make them appealing to the audience in every possible way from hair to clothes to accessories so when people consume their music (or any work of art or writing) it is very easy to consider art equivalent to the artist (when both are intended to be marketed ). Fans would argue that they are obsessed with their top tier work but this idea of persona really comes into play because no matter how good a person him/herself be, it’s still a carefully orchestrated Persona made to be visually appealing. In Stephen Colbert’s interview of BTS, he asks the fans would they still be a fan if BTS were fifty year old fat guys producing the same music and although it was followed by laughter, it is very relevant to this discussion … I once heard the incident of an Indian Actor recounting how a fan was bitterly disappointed after meeting him in person because of his not-so-handsome looks. Has this ever happened to you that you were quite disappointed on seeing the author’s picture after reading their book? Idk but it has happened to me. So privatization actually does much harm in these respects but how can we separate the two, it is perhaps too difficult!!
I completely agree with you. While BTS has many genuine fans, they wouldn't have as much popularity if they weren't good looking. Their personalities add to it too, which is a majority of kpop. There's plenty of mediocre music that blows up in kpop because of 1) the idols themselves (i.e the fans like the idols so they like every song the idol creates) 2) how the idol looks. Like zimzalabimzim, war of hormone, next level are some incredibly average songs,yet the fans treat them as if they're masterpieces. I've also noticed, a band named enhypen had stans even BEFORE they released any music,i remember reading comments saying "I'm so ready to stan enhypen" Basically,persona comes first. Even in the case of enhypen, their basic personas and profiles were released to the public before any music, which resulted in the formation of cult like fans who don't even know if the music is going to be good. These fans prepare to emotionally attach themselves to these personas, and when the debut is finally released,they hype it up. Music is secondary,looks and persona comes first. It's okay for the singer themselves to be average (jennie can hardly sing or rap,she's not particularly talented) as long as they have a good persona. I personally don't factor in looks when looking for artists, or when forming a sort of connection to the artist. But a lot of fans of kpop are younger kids, and physical attraction is new and very important to them. I was like that as a kid. I literally remember praying to God for harry Styles to have a bloody son who looks like him just so I could marry him. Pls don't judge me I was 9.
also, I'm Indian and curious how could a fan want to meet an actor without having seen him? Like they wanted to meet someone whose movies they haven't even seen?
@@mcchilde2903 the last thing had me lmao 😂, I was similar to this when I first got into kpop and that enhypen thing is soooo true and tbh why I left (consciously) all fandoms was because of this thirsting over artists which is huge
Thanks for such a long and meaningful reply
spot on,
as an artist, I'm drained away trough marketing/creative thinking.
I'm not ready to compromise art, and my work, just to have more income, or better reputation, or whatever ...
or I wouldn't be an artist,
and my work wouldn't be art.
But it's a very rough ride, to keep my work as pure as possible though. It demands so much sacrifices that almost no one, understandably, does it any more ...
(every field is being marketed away nowadays, away from it's beautiful core element)
I'm watching the video instead of working on my thesis proposal, no regrets.
Great video! I think the ideas of sir Ken Robinson about creative schools will gel well with your solution.
Yes I watched the talk in prep for this video! Good luck with the thesis proposal !!
@@AliceCappelle Wonderful! Your Content keeps getting better with time.
Thanks a lot, it means a lot coming from you. I think I'm gonna put this in my CV "famous TH-camr replied to comment"
Yeah...same
The first quote hit me hard, in a good way! Very interesting subject but I'm a bit conflicted about it, since I feel that artists that were free to use their times to create and be idle, have always been a minority. Musicians, dramatists and painters flourished at the Medici court as well as during Louis the 14th's reign because they had wealthy, influential patrons that could protect and fund them, but also control their works (Louis the 14th, for one, was not shy on censoring what he did not like). Years later, Balzac wrote most of his novels to pay off his debts, in a hurriedly and unvarnished way. Maybe he would have written better books, had he been funded by somebody, and maybe not. Maybe living solely for one's art can also in the end kill one's creativity, by making us distance from 'normal people's lives and struggles? (I believe Sally Rooney mentions this in her new book but haven't read it yet!)
I would say it has probably never been as easy to be an artist as it is today but there are definitely way more people trying it and thus, much more competition. Also, I do agree that the pressure artists feel today can be of a different sort, with social networks especially, and that things could still be done to improve their situations.
Love your point of there being a history of censors / need for monetization
The fact that you had to be in a Guild to create, women mostly weren't allowed (not even into the Royal Academy ) and you were told to paint religious scenes, portraits, whatever the patron wanted, you didn't have free expression or could afford materials. You are correct , it's never been easier to study art (thanks youtube!) or make whatever you want to, just not guaranteed a career in it.
a proud brazilian here for seeing cecilia meirelles in your video 💗🥺💗💗
Entrepreneurship
is the only thing
standing in between us
and the wide consumption of our art.
One name that always comes to mind as the archetypal artist is Prince. He encapsulated the whole publicity image that artists have today, but beyond that, in the background, he was also the ultimate artist in terms of prodigiousness, diversity and work ethic. In my opinion Prince is an impossibility that is going to be very difficult to see another artist reach.
your videos are so stunning ... so incredibly thoughtful and thought-inducing. thank you for this!! I think about this a lot when creating videos and uploading them to youtube, which is definitely ran by 'creative entrepreneurs' > 'creatives' themselves
I do believe that creativity is a birth right- it's actually the core thing that makes us humans different from other species of animals- we make things! It's just our perception of what we deem "creative," limiting it to artwork and self expression, that can stop us from identifying as an inherently creative person, and also goes along with the intense pressure we put on ourselves to "be creative." We're actually creative all the time! We create our selves, our lives and our experiences, every single moment of the day with the communication we have with ourselves and others. We do have influence of our reality through our creativity and we gain more influence just by identifying as a creative person. It changes how we move through life, it connects us to our power, purpose and pleasure, but often stems from our pain and our problems, our feelings and presence. This is how we grow and evolve individually as people, but also how to find our unique position and perspective that we can share with others, which does have the opportunity to become profit for us if there's the interest and intent to be persistent, patient, present creating a product that transforms, informs or influences people's perception of themselves somehow. Follow your interests but don't put so much pressure on yourself to do anything with it. Value and validate yourself, your experiences, especially the hard ones, and all the things you're fascinated with. Find the nuances in life that draw you in. The work of the artist is to connect the dots between it all and create the meaning and change you'd like from it. Or to choose to create no meaning or change at all. It's up to you; you're the creator! This was a wonderfully thought provoking video, Alice! Beautifully done!
I came because I saw Camila Cabello's story on Ig and I don't regret it. I'm loving this video. And even more cause I'm learning French. ❤️
this was on her story? gross
this is so inspiring! I really do not know though about the story of the free artist... Artists like bach and mozart did have to produce for rich people. Beethoven famously hated producing requested pieces, but did have to do it for money anyway.
Artists always had to bend to the will of oligarchy and even who became famous was connected to who you and more importantly your family knew. the only way out of poverty used to be through religious studies (vivaldi).
Sooooo I guess you did have a smaller space to network in, but is that really a positive if this space is STILL only accessible to the rich?
I wanna add that I DO love your point about arts in educatiion!
I believe the first thing, the surface of this theme if I would talk about it, "the death of the artist", would be the death of connection. And with "connection" I mean analysis, analysis of self, and analysis of whatever the mind finds and is attracted to. Things becoming virtual/automated (interaction, consumption, discussion, etc) make creativity less enriched because a like on my work doesn't have a face, it doesn't give me a hug, it doesn't shake my hand, it doesn't make a silent face I can treasure in the future, etc. Another thing that helped kill connection would be the fragmentation of the creative community, makers and consumers, into their genders, races, political identities, sexual existences, ethnic backgrounds and so on. When I am here and I like your video and I give you a compliment on the video, all of that falls into scrutiny, my genuine appreciation becomes something else, and connection becomes lost. In the same way, a woman who might understand little to nothing about the content of your video gives you a like and a compliment, but now the disconnection is intellectual while the connection is now empathic. A final thing we could consider as a loss of connection could be the social class differences where sometimes someone has a lot to say, a lot of knowledge, but the knowledge is trapped within a social class type of language or within a social class political concept ("they would never understand" and things of the sort) and connection, again, is lost.
The second thing, to me, would be anti-intellectualism and how it corrupted the understanding of the possible formats of art and its discourse. Social media brought a format that would be the "no format" format, where the content is irrelevant because people are buying and consuming the person delivering the content. Kinda similar to the idea of the "aura" of the artist, where the criteria for what this said artist creates is irrelevant, and it only matters that that person made it. Most people who consume Savannah's content are not consuming the content, are consuming her, looking at her and just drooling over the way the light hits her face and blah blah blah, and that is ok. The problem with that is not that she is doing it, but that there is not an understanding that what she does is one of many formats, because no one talks or thinks about the formats that are possible, not even explore possible new formats. Whatever is working, is producing views and subscribers, and followers, that becomes the format, without being an actual format. Sadly, the same way this "no format" format dictates social media it began to dictate art, and a bunch of scribblings are now being sold as illustrations, fingers tapping on simple midi mixers become music, and it mostly stops there because sculptures are expensive af to make, theatrical plays and movies as well. People suggested tiktoks were running for awards, and that is totally fine, but you know some people say they should win Oscars. People who suggest that are usually the people who might watch Savannah, with their k-pop idol profile pictures and etc. The rejection of formats would be what kills art because things have meaning, there is proportion, composition, symbolism, aesthetic choices, among other aspects. People don't want to rise to the level of the product, they want the product to be them. It's like the ultimate form of aggressive marketing where the product is not sold as "for you", but as "you".
Lastly, the problem would have a final nail on its coffin called "lack of definitions". What is art? What is an artist? What are the levels of artistic expression on a financial marketing scale? The hardest art to sell is high art or self-referential art because it has a very low connection value, so it is hard to sell as "for someone" because it feels too specific. High art would be art that is too profound, too rooted in classical references of historical art pieces, so it requires a deep level of understanding of art. Self-referential art is too profound in the other direction, it explores a side of the artist, a memory, a personal belief that doesn't justify itself, etc. Then there is concept art, which is high art but less nerdy, we could say, so people get it. Then there is commercial art, which is just cute, colorful, creative, innovative, or made by someone who has a parent that is very respected in the art world so automatically they become artists as well. Or maybe it is someone who established themselves in one art form then they decide to explore another art form, and then they just get a vernissage just like that, they just get a record deal just like that. After that, we have craftsmanship, which is the technique without the complexity of using the technique as language. A painting that is just an image, a portrait that is just a portrait, without the objective of expressing anything with the strokes of the pencil. After that, we have social media art, commissions, that is different than "commercial art" because the person who pays for it is not a company, but an individual. But likely with commercial art, commissions also end up with a lot of pornographic content. Lastly we have these people who claim to be artists, but are not, and sell themselves as the art, like Savannah who maybe sells herself as a muse, as someone who inspires others in different ways, be it for trying to be someone who also gets the same interaction from posts, the same numbers; be it for inspiring others to be her, even though the desire of being her is just insecurity speaking. So there is no artist, there is no art, there is nothing, only the immaturity of whoever consumes them. People should self-help themselves into better content.
Thanks for reading. Cool video. Very good editing using different moments in time and different angles, it helps keep the video more dynamic.
This video explains everything I have been thinking and feeling as an artist in this social media obsessed world
The most valuable function of art is to ask questions. Not to answer questions. And the better the artist, the more incisive and valuable are his/her questions.
Today art is being sold as an answer, which corrupts it.
This may seem strange but in a way, I see Lana Del Rey as a "true" artist. She writes her own songs and her albums and music have changed over the years despite many people disliking her changes. She also has a slightly confusing and problematic social media presence. In ways, she seems to live in her own world which is something I really appreciate.
I totally agree, and it's a really good thing that she left social media imo
@@liawasadiver same but i'm a little sad cos i'll miss her Instagram pics etc.
You may like weyes blood
@@saritajoshi1737 oooh ill check them out ty
@@saritajoshi1737 hell yeah weyes blood
Our french lefty queen has posted 😍
Oui oui oui
Or actually our wonderful french comrade has posted... we're not fans of the monarchy here 😂 anyway, loved the video. The transition away from artist to creative entrepreneur, and the importance of contacts, is such an interesting topic.
Such a phenomenal and beautifully made video! Thanks so very much for sharing! À bientôt 💞
im so happy your channel is growing!! this is an amazing video, well done
You always say the things I need to hear. Another great video, Alice. Merci!
Ok so you are BY FAR my favourite youtuber EVER. (hi from lima, perú).
Its something filmmakers have to consider too. The business in filmmaking is what makes it survive and thrive, and unfortunately not so great movies come from this mindset and we cant blame the filmmakers at all. I personally mourned when I have realized this, but I stopped becoming bitter when I accepted that that is just the way it is,
For those who are interested to learn about how these kind of questions also apply to the video game industry, I highly suggest "Digital Play" by Stephen Kline, Nick Dyer-Witheford and Greig De Peuter
I'm officially the second patron! Look forward to your book club and exclusive patreon content.
I had a discussion with my wife this weekend and we talked about this exact subject. How is the "trivialization" of this type of individualistic (or that function as a mirror of ones own individuality, exclusively) materials thought to be art through social media is impacting art production. And what are the social implications of it. Very good video, interesting discussion!
As a writer and unpublished author I’m worried because of this. I already constantly compare my book with much more established authors and feel like I need to constantly be entertaining/relatable if I want to even make a pinch of that success and honestly it can feel quite draining having to entertain all the time :/
Interesting post, Ms Cappelle, but a whole video about art and creativity, meritocracy and class and nothing about Inspiration? Maybe, that is why the artist is dying? I think Art is about passion and feeling and my response to what I see, feel, hear and how they inspire me. Shared interests inspire a collective. It strikes me Art has become a popular brand that is defined by how much one makes. Van Gogh died a pauper, always celebrated and financially carried by his brother, Vincent. Maybe the reality is we all need an income, Universal or Guaranteed, rather than this idea all work can be an immediate investment, or income. Van Gogh's genius wasn't revealed till after he died.
thank you for posting the quote of Cecilia Meireles, its so good to see our brazilian writers getting the attention they deserve, also I fucking love Syvia Plath.
In Mark Manson's defense, he has qualities that any good author requires. His writing draws you in, is entertaining and darkly humorous. Albeit not the genius of Nabokov or Sylvia Path, very few are, which is why they have stood the test of time.
Thank you for your TH-cam content- j’adore tes vidéos. I aspire to be so intellectually aware and creative like you!
Hopefully we can reach a point in society where creator desire and audience desire is balanced, so the algorithm doesn't leave creatives caged in.
This video made me think of Dadaism, and look here we are 100 years later. Asking the same questions
Hello Alice this is such a beautiful video! Yes everything has become about churning nowadays, there is competition on performing a certain way in areas which aren't meant be taken that way.
Another thing that confuses me a lot is how people have started setting standards for the number of books one reads in a given year, as an avid reader since a child (I'm still young) books are meant to be enjoyed (even non fiction), not counted as achievements
I think it's the first time I comment on this channel but I would like to tell you that I really like your videos
It always makes me think about things I normally wouldn't and I love it!
The fig passage that began the video was deep and beautiful♡
I can be called a 3d Artist, i do 3d animation and sculpture. I want to do what i want but at the same time i do want to earn money. And we always have to balance those things. And the best advice that can be apllied is to do personal project (besides of what I do for a company and have salary for) and build a portfolio out of my creative works. Then clients will ask do design soething for them based on that. That is how you break the circle, by continusly doing work first and then sell that style or idea to the market. And yes you have to not just an artist and knowing your craft you have to know how to sell it (or pay someone to do so). That is why social media is a great tool
Your interpretation resonates to me: Age 79 I was TKO'd by a BMW and shouldn't have lived. To that point I'd tried futilely to grasp ALL THE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS. Since, with reduced options available I can no longer try to account for every interpretive possibility. A tough lesson I DON'T RECOMMEND but reassuring nonetheless. Thanks, Alice :)
Opening with my fave quote from the bell jar okay it’s gonna be good
But, if someone is making art for the love of making art, then why should they worry about their success in the market? Emily Dickinson hardly made any money from her poems. She apparently even refused compensation. That didn't stop her from writing poetry because she was doing it for the love of the craft. Social trends and marketing tactics only become a burden when your goal is to make money and gain recognition from it. And I feel like many artists who make the critiques you made in this video are being dishonest by not admitting that they want to make a bunch of money and garner a bunch of attention because admitting that would contradict the "struggling artist making art for the love of it not for the fame and fortune" persona.
Many of the most cherished artists in history had no reason to expect that more than 100 people would read their work. But they did it anyway. If you genuinely love making art, then make it. But I don't know if getting disappointed when the market doesn't reward you for your art is useful. The market is made up of human beings who choose what they want to choose. You can't force people to pay attention to your work.
Because times are different. The attention economy is much more competitive now then it has ever been. In a world where social media and apps do all they can to steal your attention, if you don't adopt similar tactics in your art, the majority of people won't pay enough attention to it to engage with it meaningfully. And with so much being produced every single day (much more than it was ever produced), it's much easier for your art to get lost in the crowd for eternity, just because it wasn't chosen by 'the algorithm'. Marketing of art, therefore, is necessary for the reach of it.
Or maybe not. I haven't settled in an opinion yet, but I think these things can't be ignored in a discussion about this.
agree, you can do it as a hobby, post online if needed and if u make money off it by printing some of it on a shirt or selling costumed item, great! but if not? you still have a fun hobby.
@Indigo Rodent I agreed with the op but this is a good point.
Maybe because some people want to live with their art..
The last two lines are just not true..certainly not completely true.
I'm a painter and have thought about this topic A LOT (marketability, death of the author and such). "Making it" in the art world does take a level of quality (as in making genuinely interesting, thoughtful art), but that once your reach that point of quality, it's kinda down to luck: meeting the right curators or gallerists, or making the right kind of art at the right time (being marketable).
With my chances of "success" being so slim, I've had to remind myself again and again why I got into painting in the first place, which is: painting itself, nothing more, nothing less. Don't get me wrong though, I'd love to make a living painting full time, but if that means painting things to suit the market, I'll pass. I'd rather work another job, paint less but paint what's honest to me :)
I feel this on a strong level. Whenever I say I write, people almost religiously (not that they know the true definition of the word religion or ever have a thought-provoking thought on their own) ask me: (When) will you publish it?
As if they want to ask: when will you make money from it?
As if they don't understand anything could be done other than means of plain basic survival and the monetary contributions that lead to it. But maybe this is too harsh a thought on the current society and age, maybe people were just like that before.
Either way, true artists are the ones who don't do it for monetary value. Nothing changed. Everyone else we call a con-artist - they might have a skill but that's not a real artist. A con-artist writing books running after money produces only kitch to the real art of an artist.
However I also do acknowledge it's terrible to suffer from that expectation that people will expect a similar content or output from you, it limits me too. So in the words of Marcus Aurelius: better to create and not expect anything at all.
Better to not create for an audience. That leads away from the path.
As a Brazilian I loved seeing Cecilia Meireles reflection on freedom mentioned
I love your soothing calm voice 💜
Had a course about Shakespeare today and how relevant his works were. The fact that his plays were entertaining both educated people and lower classes was phenomenal. It was the democratisation of intellectual entertainment in a way, like very complex movies and TV shows today. It reminded me of your video, such an interesting one and what a coincidence! Continue, j’adore ❤️
And I agree completely on the fact that national education should emphasise the importance of art (in all its forms) in schools, as creativity should be more valued, because without art and creativity, life would be so dull. Car comme disait Nietzsche : “L’Art nous est donné pour nous empêcher de mourir de la vérité.”
Your channel is very relevant, keep up 🙏🏻
In my country, we have public music schooling and it's such a great concept. For about 15euros per month, your child gets instrument and music theory classes 2x a week. Later, they get other subjects like choir, chamber music, harmony, counterpoint etc.
Primary music school lasts 6 and the high school 4 years. So basically, an average kid who finishes both schools ends up with 10 years of systematic music schooling at the age of 18.
These schools produce professional musicians, who later go to study at music academies, but they educate future audiences as well, which i think is very important.
Lol unfortunately, classical music scene is at the same time very weak, because of the bad political situation. And everything is going in the direction of imitating America and western european countires. Also expensive private music classes, which are objectively worse, are gaining popularity. because if you pay more, it must be better amirite???
I hope music schooling won't become very elitist again.
Which country is this? Sounds like Austria or Germany. Probably not though...
@@pennryan970
I am talking about Croatia and other Balkan countries. (Mostly ex-yugoslavia, music schools were established during the communist regime)
i think Poland and some other countries have basically the same system.
you'd be surpised to hear that Austrian and German music schooling doesn't really work like that. Yes, there are music schools, but they usually don't have same curriculum all over the country. So each school kinda works a bit differently.
In croatia, all schools work the same Also, there are more schools and the general standard in music school is higher: more subjects, more classes per week, more projects etc.
@@Wingers55 wow that's fascinating. I'm glad to hear that your system supports music literacy. I'd love to visit some day.
I love your narration style. It's so well written and gives me a calm feeling. Maybe it's the French too (;