I only make Art for $$$. I've had to deal with some extremely dillusional people in the "High Art" world. But they ALL came from money, and have money.
I'll never forget how smugly and snootily my instructors dismissed me landing a job in advertising fresh out of my design program. "That's a shame, you have a lot of talent." I had initially thought about pursuing another degree but hearing this turned me off academia forever. I am rooting for every creative that is able to support themselves with their work.
I think it's pretty normal to be deeply critical of capitalism and our government systems, while also participating in them and having it serve as a central pillar of one's life. I feel like most people can probably relate to that apparently contradiction on some level. Most works are created for an audience, like a performance. If that artwork aligns perfectly with the needs of an audience then it can be exchanged, and the art is given value. But I think there is also a danger here: the tainting of the work is less about capitalism, and more about the artist's vision being contorted by the expectations or needs of an audience. From my experience it seems that most creatives make their money through catering to the masses by producing slop with their skills, and then pursue their true vision on the side. If these two variables can perfectly align then that's the ideal situation, but I think that's probably rare?
8:20 you just described one of the main thesis in Mark Fisher's book Capitalist Realism. And you're 100% right, anything critiquing capitalism is just commodified itself.
Listen to this man. I went to art school back in the day. We were not adequately trained in... anything. It didn't engage with where contemporary art was heading, didn't engage with the material reality of art production and sale, purported to center on old school 'painting, printmaking, photography division (no sculpture, no performance) and failed to engage on the conceptual level AND failed to equip us with adequate technical skills (none of the staff were particularly interesting, skilled, or successful). Failing in one of these areas would have been poor, but to fail across the board? And you don't realise until it's too late; as a young person before the internet - especially without the advantage of an artistically connected city education - how do you know? And technical skills can always be acquired; it's understanding how the art world works, and how to shape an art career, that is absolutely crucial.
True, and I 100 percent agree, you are a fantastic mind, and I'm an artist who puts the writing on the wall of my room so I can finish writing my songs is because of an idea that I heard from you. Thank you for my productivity as an artist.
“Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art.” Warhol. Supposedly.
It's hardly unusual for an artist to regard money as a corrupting force - we don't need a teacher to tell us that when simple experience makes it apparent. That is why some creatives are content to live in poverty, and a good deal more work a separate job for the money. I've known some folks who were naturally inclined to produce market-friendly work and they seem genuinely happy doing it. Those people do exist. But me personally, I'd sooner work a cash register than make my work more market friendly.
But the time you're spending working a cash register could have been spent honing your technical skills, couldn't it? Why is it better to do something totally unrelated rather than only slightly related to what you want?
@@artiexus I can only speak of my own journey - not only has time not been a restraint, but if I could say anything to my younger self, it would be to not be in such a rush to create. What's been far more impactful for me has been the context surrounding my creative process - when I am free of stress and owe no obligations beyond that to the work itself, that is when I do my best work. It is also when I'm happiest. I wouldn't be able to do that if I was beholden to the dollar, given any amount of time. I know... I've tried.
@@artiexus also, can't believe I forgot this at first - some of my best opportunities arose from people who came through my line. Meeting tons of people is never unrelated to a career that wants an audience!
Great video! I am (like most artist), a Romantic. I craved meaning in what I do, more than $, nicer car or whatever else. I genuinely believed if I poured my heart, soul, IQ, into creating something objectively meaningful, objectively good then I would be rewarded with at least a lower middle-class life. It’s been over two decades on this uphill path, and I am content enough; but there are days I wish I would’ve just became an insurance salesman or something predictable and steady.
Im a senior at art school right now in Australia, I think we have a good balance! Here’s how my university works: we have theory classes that introduce the discourse and contemporary culture so that we can write about it in the right ways, and we also have weekly professional practices classes on the business of art and self promotion in commercial and gallery settings. We also do internships as an optional elective. Is it similar in the states?
There seem to be three ways that artists sustain their studio practices without selling their work on the capitalist market: 1) Trust funds or family money. These artists don't need to earn a living and use their family money to sustain themselves. While not participating in commodification (perhaps because there is no market for their work), they are benefiting from the previous generations' successes in Capitalist endeavors; 2) Alternative streams of income, such as rental properties or teaching at an art school. Artists who choose this route often do so not because that are against commodification of their art, but rather, they don't want to feel the pressure to commodify their art either because it changes their relationship to their work or they accurately understand that they won't succeed at it, as evidenced by the fact that for every 100 artists who want to commodify their art, a very small percentage actually succeed. The logic here is that it's more likely an artist will be able to sustain their self from a capitalist pursuit other than selling their art; 3) Fundraising. Increasingly, especially in the public art commission arena, it's possible to raise funds for one's work by getting government, foundation and sometimes private commissions to make artwork that's often, but not always, for free public display such as in a metro station or a government building.
All good points. The relationship between money and art is complex and it is definitely unfortunately at best and harmful at worst to be telling kids that their art is tainted if they profit from it. It's especially sad considering the way that the art world gobbles up artists and then sells their work at massively inflated prices, lots of times after they're dead; Basquiat comes to mind. Point being, if a young artist doesn't make money from their work, SOMEONE eventually will. As you said, it's hypocritical for students to be told this stuff while the art world itself is buying and selling like crazy. Art is commodified whether we like it or not; it's a fact of life that it's not even really in our control. And while I know not all art schools are the way you describe, it does often seem to be the case with friends I know who've gone to them. It's doubly frustrating considering just how art schools cost as well... one of my friend's told me his niece was starting at CCS this semester and I nearly winced in pain thinking about the amount of crushing debt she and her parents will be left with. Hopefully she'll end up choosing a major that will get her a sustainable income afterwards.
Can I ask, what schools are pushing this? Not trolling. My profs were a reasonably happy for me when my work started selling, though they did warn me about the dangers of overexposure and the temptations of making second-rate work to move units.
Very interesting video! I do, however have a few objections to make. The main one being that, in the same way that you talk about being able to critique art school and institutions while admitting that the experience of it can be hugely beneficial, I also believe that this "anti-capitalist" stance has some more depth to it; e.g., being able to critique the commodification of art and the artistic processes under capitalism while simultaneously being aware that in order to be able to be economically solvent as an individual you will (most definitely) need to participate somehow in the capitalist art/design market. Personally, I don't believe that such a stance makes someone a hypocrite - in a world where capitalism prevails without any real alternative to it (except for some countries with state capitalism or totalitarian, quasi-monarchical regimes), as an artist you really have no other choice but to sell your labour in the same way that, let's say, an engineer that is critical with capitalism must also do so. One solution that I can think of could be to teach about anti-capitalist and anti-commodification but trying not to introduce the "guilt" component in the individual student when it comes to the production of art. Of course, I dont mean that we should be lenient or put our guards down towards exploitative and unethical practices, but instead, that in a reality and a culture that is shaped by a capitalist economy, it is realistically not possible to create "anti-commodification" artworks without tackling the economic model and material conditions under the which art is created. Unless you're going to paint some bison in the walls of a cave far from civilization. That being said, I do believe that the Banksy example is a great case of hipocrisy, as well as of mild, shallow "critique" that doesn't go any further than "society bad".
In short (and to summarize the rant) making students feel as if their work is tainted for being commodified is stupid even under anti-capitalist theory. So maybe we could track the source of this problem to a lousy representation of these ideas in art schools and institutions. Honestly, such statements sound quite similar to the "Oh yeah so you're a communist but you still have an iPhone huh?" thing.
@@StudioPractice1 You talk about artists who wish to sustain themselves in a capitalist system while using an image generator that directly robs artists of their work and value in a capitalist system to visually communicate your argument. It's intensely hypocritical and does, in fact, discredit your video.
I think the line if very thin. If every "stroke of your brush" is done for the sole purpose of acquiring money for the sake of money, then the work is tainted no doubt. Then art(work) becomes mere formula, a science, something predictable instead of magical, it's like making mirrors and calling them "self-portrait paintings"
"Money bad." From the people charging you 50K or more a semester. Banksy is a [ *Expletive Deleted* ] multi-millionaire. Don't hate the player, master the game.
where are these teachers telling kids their work is “tainted” if they sell it? I’ve heard designers complain about their lack of healthcare, or the agency they work at was paying them late again. seems pretty reasonable to me
I was never told that the work was tainted if I made money from it at art school. but, I didn’t learn a lot about the happenings of the art world, that’s the biggest thing my school did wrong. I think there’s a good conversation to be had here, but I think your criticisms here are pretty sweeping to the point of near meaninglessness
Art isn't a natural resource people can fight or bid for, you have to force people to accept its value on purely subjective aesthetics. People will struggle using just artistic talent without being able to mark-up their products. Artists throughout time have been essentially beggars, needing financial patronage to sustain themselves, this is just the reality of dedicating your pife to creating products no one actually needs.
Anyone who says that starving is virtuous is an idiot. This is a good video, but I think you only hint at the actual key irony at play here. You focus on the fact that art school teach a reaistance to comodification when thats required to survive as an artist, which is true, but the resistance to capitalism isnt entirely the same thing. It isnt a contradiction to be anticapitalist while doing what you need to to live comfortably because that's not really doing capitalism, it's doing commerce. Capitalism is where value is extracted from workers to owners. Selling one's own art isnt doing capitalism because the value your labor adds goes back to you. This is of course not entirely true, and you kinda hint at that-- you say that the art world is deeply linked to wealth because that's who is buying the work since that's who can afford it. The thing artists operating in this world need to reckon with is that the money they're being paid from their work got to their buyer via exploitation. I think that art schools that teach that art is less worthy if you can sustain yourself with it are engaging in malpractice. I think the people who say this are using it as a way to avoid the actual real question, which is whether it is ethical to give exploiters tokens of their wealth. The reality is that it doesnt matter-- you cant live in a better world if you dont survive long enough to get there. There are discussions to be had about everyone's complicity in capitalism, but making art and selling it isn't really meaningfully different from going to the grocery store in thet sense. If the people going off against make any money from art admitted that the problem isnt the artist getting paid but rather how the buyer got the funds, they'd have to recognize that theyre at least as complicit as anyone making a living from their art. Theres a discussion to be had, and i think art school is a place to have it, but it doesnt seem like a lot of people are willing to confront the real moral problems at hand.
it is easy to see all the evils of capitalism, but just as easy to ignore that virtually all advancements in modern society are because someone somewhere wanted to make a buck. To deny capitalism is to deny progress.
This video should have been 30 seconds: in order to sustain yourself as an artist, you need to be paid to be an artist. Why not just say that and be done with it? Regarding the comment on hypocrisy, I think that's just wrong. It is not hypocritical to critique capitalism while participating in it, because there is just no alternative but to participate in capitalism. In fact, that's the entire point of your video.
i kinda wonder why hypocrisy matters. like really who cares? our entire social order is led by people signaling virtues they don't extoll and normal people constantly have to compromise who they are and what they believe to get by. no one is without sin. anyways awesome video, i just don't understand that point.
You kind of mixed things up a bit. At first you're talking about selling art to sustain your practice. Then you switch it up at the end and ask how you can sustain a studio practice without participating in the system. Those are two different questions.
unhinged paranoia with no basis in reality. what the hell. teacher is teaching this anywhere? don't charge for your work? marxism? nowhere is this happening. steaming hot garbage.
The decay in artistic standards is a symptom of a world plagued by state-imposed high time preference and corporatist influences, not true capitalism. When people are coerced through endless taxation and manipulated by subsidies, bailouts, and regulations, they are trained to value the immediate over the lasting. Real capitalism fosters a culture of low time preference-where individuals save, invest, and strive for enduring value, be it in business or in art. Today’s art world is trapped by state-driven corporatism, not true market freedom. Subsidies and government-funded 'art' encourage shallow, trendy expressions rather than allowing artists to risk, innovate, and create works that can stand the test of time. True artistic value emerges from the free market of ideas, not from bureaucrats who think they know what art the public 'needs.' Until we break free from the state’s grip, we will continue to see more mediocre posturing and less timeless art that inspires across generations.
Just watched like 30 aeconds and gotta say art schools dont push narratives- they push establishinh a research practice and the synthesis of information in general- kids pursue what they want to discover and most realize correctly that capitalism and art are complex -- mb will watch the rest later but dunno u sound agenda motivated (engagement for algo?)
The title is click bait (if I’m going to make a TH-cam video - and those are the rules of the game… those are the rules of the game). And, yes. I have an agenda. I’m not sure if i understand your point with regard to the agenda… I’m not supposed to? Doesn’t everyone, have an agenda? With regard to art schools “don;’t push narratives” … uh…. (Confused look on his face) uh… have you been to art school?
How are you to sustain your studio practice? You are supposed to be rich already before you start. We don't want bums at our expensive art and design school.
This kind of thinking is using capitalism realism (head over to Mark Fisher's masterpiece "Capitalist Realism") to shut down any critical thinking about capitalism. Instead of listening to this dude in his studio telling you that criticising capitalism makes no sense because capitalism has engulfed any kind of creativity, please give a read to this really good book: Caps Lock: How Capitalism Took Hold of Graphic Design, and How to Escape from It. And yes, you should make money with your work. Yet, you MUST as a reasonable person and a sensitive person, fully criticise the insanely fucked up colonial late capitalism world we live in and the ethic behind your work.
Thanks for writing. I’m not sure where i was telling people “that criticizing capitalism makes no sense.” “You mad dog?” Sounds like you got triggered and stopped listening to what I was *actually saying. Like 3 times in the video I say that “while ideologically appealing” and “this DOES NOT MEAN that late stage capitalism ISN’T predatory” and “so far so good” ( I guess i could paste the transcript of the video here, but it would probably be easier for you to just actually watch the video) - uh… there’s this thing. It’s called the TH-cam algorithm - the title “Anti Capitalist Posturing and Stupidity in Art” is designed for the algorithm. The thing is, the issue that i raise *IS a problem. And my point is that *most people do not form their belief system by reading books. They form their belief system by something called “in group affiliation.” (By looking at their friends and just kinda assimilating their positions on issues.) Yea… good luck getting your average design student to read Fisher’s “C.R.”… Yea… not happening bruv. What they hear and see, is “money bad.’ “My bohemian in group says working is predatory.” College professors have an *actual and *real responsibility to their students to give them counsel. To disambiguate shit. Look *most of my friends are college professors, and I love art and design school… but MANY academics have absolutely lost touch with the mechanics of how life works outside academia. Oh… and when you say “you MUST as a reasonable person and a sensitive person, fully criticism the insanely fucked up colonial late capitalist world we live in and the ethic behind your work.” What the fuck do you think this video is doing? Or… my whole channel? It’s LITERALLY an exact realization of that sentence. When i read your comment back i think. “All good, until we come to the last sentence.” You should add a final sentence to your comment. And it should read. “And when you DO criticize this fucked up world, your conclusions BETTER AGREE WITH MINE!” (In all seriousness, I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to write. I mean that. God Speed)
@@StudioPractice1 Thank you for this answer. This is the complimentary add-on that the video needed in my humble opinion. I just wanted to put some shit in the fan and get a reaction from you or other viewers. I did hear the reserve towards capitalism throughout the point you were making, it just was slightly underwhelming. Looking forward to see more of you in the future.
Honestly, there's an argument you could make for capitalism as foundational to the capital orders, which is the root of all commissioned works, but you didn't do that. Also, capitalism will fall with the Corinthian Order. If you don't know that, you aren't a very observant artist.
Precisely. The performance of the sentence you quote “Money Bad!” The orator (Me) assumes a different voice, indicating that the people he disagrees with ARE SIMPLIFYING THE CRITIQUE OF CAPITALISM and in the process doing an honest critique of capitalism violence. My entire video is/was attempting to suggest that - and i quote - “This is not to suggest that late stage capitalism is *not predatory, but rather that there are degrees” - Uh… I’m arguing for a pragmatic (and more nuanced) approach to the issue then the simplistic “MONEY BAD..
Uh…. (Geez Bruv) Fallacy Fallacy (Or Argument from Fallacy here ⬆️) Bro… just because you’ve watched a few of those Spock logic videos on TH-cam and then go on to make a list of logical fallacies does not mean that your argument itself is not constructed as a giant logical fallacy. Here add this one to your arsenal: From ChadGPT Below: Argument from Fallacy This occurs when someone dismisses an argument solely because it contains, or appears to contain, a fallacy without addressing the substance of the argument or providing any evidence to refute it. In this situation, simply pointing out potential fallacies, without explaining how they apply or presenting evidence, does not automatically invalidate the argument. Just because an argument may contain a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is false-it only means the reasoning leading to the conclusion might be flawed. The key error here is assuming that if an argument is fallacious, its conclusion must be wrong. In a debate, it's crucial to explain why the fallacy is relevant and how it affects the argument, ideally while providing supporting evidence to back up the refutation.
What evidence is there that political philosophy is being pushed institutionally in art schools? It sounds like you're feeling entitled to what other people are allowed to express through art
You're very confused politically. Being anti-capitalist doesn't mean you don't participate in capitalism. The reality of our situation is that we have to live within the confines of this political and economic system and some of us are more privileged as to what degree we have to participate/are affected by this system. Capitalism is the enemy of creative human endeavors, placing more value on profit rather than people and their creations. Being anti-capitalist just means one is aware of the default mode of injustice capitalism creates and is for change. I can't watch any videos on your channel after this terrible take.
Watch what you want. Don’t watch what you don’t want. So…let me see if I understand you correctly. You disagree with my “take” (my conclusion), so you “can’t watch any videos on my channel after this terrible take.” Ok. Gotcha. So… you only watch videos that confirm your worldview. ✅. Have fun with that.
@@StudioPractice1 The title of this video quite literally puts together the ideas of anti-capitalism and stupidity, which reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what anti-capitalist critique is about. I have no issue watching videos that differ from my worldview, but this isn’t simply a matter of conflicting opinions-it’s a question of how accurately and fairly arguments are represented. This video stepped out of its lane by making sweeping generalizations and propagating pro-bourgeoisie ideas that are counter to my core values of egalitarianism and equity. The critique presented here disregards the nuanced positions that many artists and designers hold. It’s not about wanting to fail or reject the market entirely; it’s about recognizing and challenging how capitalism constrains artistic freedom and how art is often reduced to a commodity within this system. Just because anti-capitalist creators sell their work or participate in the market doesn’t mean they aren’t critical of it. Anti-capitalism isn’t about total disengagement from the market or ‘purity’ of practice-it’s about acknowledging the contradictions and injustices inherent in a system that prioritizes profit over people, and advocating for change. I’m open to watching videos that present differing perspectives, but the lack of critical nuance in this one shows a superficial understanding of anti-capitalist thought. If the response to my comment is that I’m closed off or just seeking confirmation bias, that’s dismissive and doesn’t address the substance of my critique.
First of all, my dude... I guess you're unaware that the TH-cam Algorithm has a logic that favors sensationalist headlines. It's a thing called C.T.R. (Click Through Rate). Would you prefer that I titled the video "A Failed Attempt at A Relatively Nuanced Analysis of Ant-Capitalist Sentiment in Art and Design School. And While The Aforementioned "Take" Steps Outside The Overton Window of 'Acceptable' Discourse in Design School, The Intent is to Place The Student's Educational Needs Ahead of The Performative Needs of The Professor?" And to your point that the video "stepped out of it's lane." Thanks for both tone policing me and reminding me of my "lane" (scribbles notes... "next time... stay in lane." looks up. looks down. Scribbles: "Check in with Werner next time before hitting publish to make sure video is in my 'lane'"). However, as much as I genuinely enjoy our discussion, when I read your comments, I can't help but be left with the impression that you didn't *actually watch the video. Put the bong down. One of the primary points behind the video is that *too many students develop their ethos (their worldview) not through careful contemplation but through in-group affiliation. And that the professorial class have the luxury of being able to adopt beliefs that can be completely detached from the realities faced by young designers and artists outside the academy. And (whether you want to acknowledge this or not) the anti-capitalist posturing has - in some academic settings - taken on a fundamentalist character. So, while you accuse me of NOT arguing for a more nuanced approach to the issue... uh... that's the thesis of the video. But apparently, you cannot grok that because you were triggered by my clickbait title.
@@StudioPractice1 Thank you for replying! I want to clarify that I did watch the full video, and I’m responding because I engaged with your arguments in detail. My intention wasn’t to tone police, so I apologize if it came across that way. I get what you’re saying about anti-capitalist discourse sometimes feeling disconnected from the realities students face outside of academia. You also mention how students often adopt in-group mindsets uncritically, and I agree. But from my perspective, anti-capitalism challenges these rigid systems rather than reinforcing them. As you pointed out, it’s important for students to grapple with power dynamics that lead to exploitation and inequality-something they’re going to experience firsthand in the creative fields. I also think it’s possible for anti-capitalist perspectives to coexist with a realistic outlook on career-building. These ideas aren’t mutually exclusive. While I may have jumped to conclusions about your stance in the video, I see anti-capitalist critiques as a way to push for change while acknowledging the realities we operate within. My frustration comes from feeling like anti-capitalism is being dismissed as unproductive, when it can actually shed light on the exact struggles young creatives face today. So rather than viewing anti-capitalism as a “boogeyman,” I see it as a tool for critically assessing the industry and pushing for a fairer system. Artists have always been at the forefront of questioning norms, and I think they should continue to challenge the economic forces that shape their work. Again, sorry if my earlier comment seemed harsh or jumped to conclusions.
Ahhh Werner… Yer my Dude. (Think about this for a second. I never know how hard to go in the comments. LOL. Ya never know if you’re dealing with an internet troll or a bad faith argument.) I enjoy the “sport” of it all. (Sorry about the “put down the bong” comment. Ha.) In all seriousness, I don’t generally disagree with your argument. I’m not sure if how much time you’ve spent in art and design school. But, honestly - in some cases, there is no “argument” at all. It’s all in-group affiliation wave thing: troglodyte: “Money Bad.” And I’m like… “I’ve been there… you’ll starve with that shit. Be more strategic than that.” Thanks for playing my dude. ❤️
Probably the only way to be truly anti-capitalist is to go off-grid, build your hut and grow your veg, not use any medicine etc, which is extremely rare. We use this system, we keep selling and buying artworks/products/skills to sustain our lives, it's only problematic when it turns extreme into forms of modern slavery, economic inequality and such things, and that's not exactly a problem of capitalism itself, but rather human desire to be in power and to dominate. I tried to understand some artists I used to hang out with, who claim to be all independent and look down on everyone with a "regular" job and kept selling the idea that nobody should work, but like 'hey, babe, you literally sleep on my couch in the apartment I pay for, you eat food that I buy and you ask for donations from those you openly hate, you sure your ideology works?!'. Just my 2 cents.
I only make Art for $$$. I've had to deal with some extremely dillusional people in the "High Art" world. But they ALL came from money, and have money.
It's a good rule of thumb... If you're criticizing the world, start with reality and then make steps toward what you want
I'll never forget how smugly and snootily my instructors dismissed me landing a job in advertising fresh out of my design program. "That's a shame, you have a lot of talent." I had initially thought about pursuing another degree but hearing this turned me off academia forever. I am rooting for every creative that is able to support themselves with their work.
I think it's pretty normal to be deeply critical of capitalism and our government systems, while also participating in them and having it serve as a central pillar of one's life. I feel like most people can probably relate to that apparently contradiction on some level.
Most works are created for an audience, like a performance. If that artwork aligns perfectly with the needs of an audience then it can be exchanged, and the art is given value. But I think there is also a danger here: the tainting of the work is less about capitalism, and more about the artist's vision being contorted by the expectations or needs of an audience.
From my experience it seems that most creatives make their money through catering to the masses by producing slop with their skills, and then pursue their true vision on the side. If these two variables can perfectly align then that's the ideal situation, but I think that's probably rare?
8:20 you just described one of the main thesis in Mark Fisher's book Capitalist Realism. And you're 100% right, anything critiquing capitalism is just commodified itself.
Listen to this man. I went to art school back in the day. We were not adequately trained in... anything. It didn't engage with where contemporary art was heading, didn't engage with the material reality of art production and sale, purported to center on old school 'painting, printmaking, photography division (no sculpture, no performance) and failed to engage on the conceptual level AND failed to equip us with adequate technical skills (none of the staff were particularly interesting, skilled, or successful). Failing in one of these areas would have been poor, but to fail across the board? And you don't realise until it's too late; as a young person before the internet - especially without the advantage of an artistically connected city education - how do you know? And technical skills can always be acquired; it's understanding how the art world works, and how to shape an art career, that is absolutely crucial.
True, and I 100 percent agree, you are a fantastic mind, and I'm an artist who puts the writing on the wall of my room so I can finish writing my songs is because of an idea that I heard from you. Thank you for my productivity as an artist.
“Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art.” Warhol. Supposedly.
Thanks for allowing me to microdose well communicated art industry lectures and critques. Quality stuff 👏🏻
It's hardly unusual for an artist to regard money as a corrupting force - we don't need a teacher to tell us that when simple experience makes it apparent. That is why some creatives are content to live in poverty, and a good deal more work a separate job for the money.
I've known some folks who were naturally inclined to produce market-friendly work and they seem genuinely happy doing it. Those people do exist. But me personally, I'd sooner work a cash register than make my work more market friendly.
But the time you're spending working a cash register could have been spent honing your technical skills, couldn't it? Why is it better to do something totally unrelated rather than only slightly related to what you want?
@@artiexus I can only speak of my own journey - not only has time not been a restraint, but if I could say anything to my younger self, it would be to not be in such a rush to create.
What's been far more impactful for me has been the context surrounding my creative process - when I am free of stress and owe no obligations beyond that to the work itself, that is when I do my best work. It is also when I'm happiest.
I wouldn't be able to do that if I was beholden to the dollar, given any amount of time. I know... I've tried.
@@artiexus also, can't believe I forgot this at first - some of my best opportunities arose from people who came through my line. Meeting tons of people is never unrelated to a career that wants an audience!
These videos are so much more valuable than most of the stuff my professors have to say. They are like an oasis. Thank you.
Great video! I am (like most artist), a Romantic. I craved meaning in what I do, more than $, nicer car or whatever else.
I genuinely believed if I poured my heart, soul, IQ, into creating something objectively meaningful, objectively good then I would be rewarded with at least a lower middle-class life.
It’s been over two decades on this uphill path, and I am content enough; but there are days I wish I would’ve just became an insurance salesman or something predictable and steady.
Im a senior at art school right now in Australia, I think we have a good balance! Here’s how my university works: we have theory classes that introduce the discourse and contemporary culture so that we can write about it in the right ways, and we also have weekly professional practices classes on the business of art and self promotion in commercial and gallery settings. We also do internships as an optional elective. Is it similar in the states?
There seem to be three ways that artists sustain their studio practices without selling their work on the capitalist market: 1) Trust funds or family money. These artists don't need to earn a living and use their family money to sustain themselves. While not participating in commodification (perhaps because there is no market for their work), they are benefiting from the previous generations' successes in Capitalist endeavors; 2) Alternative streams of income, such as rental properties or teaching at an art school. Artists who choose this route often do so not because that are against commodification of their art, but rather, they don't want to feel the pressure to commodify their art either because it changes their relationship to their work or they accurately understand that they won't succeed at it, as evidenced by the fact that for every 100 artists who want to commodify their art, a very small percentage actually succeed. The logic here is that it's more likely an artist will be able to sustain their self from a capitalist pursuit other than selling their art; 3) Fundraising. Increasingly, especially in the public art commission arena, it's possible to raise funds for one's work by getting government, foundation and sometimes private commissions to make artwork that's often, but not always, for free public display such as in a metro station or a government building.
All good points. The relationship between money and art is complex and it is definitely unfortunately at best and harmful at worst to be telling kids that their art is tainted if they profit from it. It's especially sad considering the way that the art world gobbles up artists and then sells their work at massively inflated prices, lots of times after they're dead; Basquiat comes to mind. Point being, if a young artist doesn't make money from their work, SOMEONE eventually will. As you said, it's hypocritical for students to be told this stuff while the art world itself is buying and selling like crazy. Art is commodified whether we like it or not; it's a fact of life that it's not even really in our control. And while I know not all art schools are the way you describe, it does often seem to be the case with friends I know who've gone to them. It's doubly frustrating considering just how art schools cost as well... one of my friend's told me his niece was starting at CCS this semester and I nearly winced in pain thinking about the amount of crushing debt she and her parents will be left with. Hopefully she'll end up choosing a major that will get her a sustainable income afterwards.
Can I ask, what schools are pushing this? Not trolling. My profs were a reasonably happy for me when my work started selling, though they did warn me about the dangers of overexposure and the temptations of making second-rate work to move units.
I’d prefer not to “callout”… it’s a thing… trucks me.
What I mean, is that the phenomenon is an actual thing.
Thank you
Very interesting video! I do, however have a few objections to make. The main one being that, in the same way that you talk about being able to critique art school and institutions while admitting that the experience of it can be hugely beneficial, I also believe that this "anti-capitalist" stance has some more depth to it; e.g., being able to critique the commodification of art and the artistic processes under capitalism while simultaneously being aware that in order to be able to be economically solvent as an individual you will (most definitely) need to participate somehow in the capitalist art/design market. Personally, I don't believe that such a stance makes someone a hypocrite - in a world where capitalism prevails without any real alternative to it (except for some countries with state capitalism or totalitarian, quasi-monarchical regimes), as an artist you really have no other choice but to sell your labour in the same way that, let's say, an engineer that is critical with capitalism must also do so. One solution that I can think of could be to teach about anti-capitalist and anti-commodification but trying not to introduce the "guilt" component in the individual student when it comes to the production of art. Of course, I dont mean that we should be lenient or put our guards down towards exploitative and unethical practices, but instead, that in a reality and a culture that is shaped by a capitalist economy, it is realistically not possible to create "anti-commodification" artworks without tackling the economic model and material conditions under the which art is created. Unless you're going to paint some bison in the walls of a cave far from civilization. That being said, I do believe that the Banksy example is a great case of hipocrisy, as well as of mild, shallow "critique" that doesn't go any further than "society bad".
In short (and to summarize the rant) making students feel as if their work is tainted for being commodified is stupid even under anti-capitalist theory. So maybe we could track the source of this problem to a lousy representation of these ideas in art schools and institutions. Honestly, such statements sound quite similar to the "Oh yeah so you're a communist but you still have an iPhone huh?" thing.
Great comments… I’m driving but will respond later.. thanks
Well said. When (if) you ever get that DM, please forward it to me.
Talking about art while using AI immediately discredits this whole video
No it doesn’t.
@@StudioPractice1 You talk about artists who wish to sustain themselves in a capitalist system while using an image generator that directly robs artists of their work and value in a capitalist system to visually communicate your argument. It's intensely hypocritical and does, in fact, discredit your video.
Ok. That’s a fair point. I’ll rescind my “no it doesn’t.”
I think the line if very thin. If every "stroke of your brush" is done for the sole purpose of acquiring money for the sake of money, then the work is tainted no doubt. Then art(work) becomes mere formula, a science, something predictable instead of magical, it's like making mirrors and calling them "self-portrait paintings"
"Money bad." From the people charging you 50K or more a semester.
Banksy is a [ *Expletive Deleted* ] multi-millionaire.
Don't hate the player, master the game.
where are these teachers telling kids their work is “tainted” if they sell it?
I’ve heard designers complain about their lack of healthcare, or the agency they work at was paying them late again. seems pretty reasonable to me
Watchu’ talkin’ bout Willis!? Like literally *EVERYWHERE.
I was never told that the work was tainted if I made money from it at art school. but, I didn’t learn a lot about the happenings of the art world, that’s the biggest thing my school did wrong. I think there’s a good conversation to be had here, but I think your criticisms here are pretty sweeping to the point of near meaninglessness
@paintlady ok… “sweeping to the point of meaninglessness.” I like that criticism.
@@StudioPractice1 I appreciate your sportsmanship, also your art is neat
It’s all for the love of the game… ❤️
Real.
Great video man. Capitalism for them is just a stand-in for everything they don't like
There is no comeback.
Art isn't a natural resource people can fight or bid for, you have to force people to accept its value on purely subjective aesthetics.
People will struggle using just artistic talent without being able to mark-up their products.
Artists throughout time have been essentially beggars, needing financial patronage to sustain themselves, this is just the reality of dedicating your pife to creating products no one actually needs.
Making a video about modern artistic expression and using AI imagery is bonkers
anti capitalism is never stupid
! Thanks
Anyone who says that starving is virtuous is an idiot. This is a good video, but I think you only hint at the actual key irony at play here. You focus on the fact that art school teach a reaistance to comodification when thats required to survive as an artist, which is true, but the resistance to capitalism isnt entirely the same thing. It isnt a contradiction to be anticapitalist while doing what you need to to live comfortably because that's not really doing capitalism, it's doing commerce. Capitalism is where value is extracted from workers to owners. Selling one's own art isnt doing capitalism because the value your labor adds goes back to you.
This is of course not entirely true, and you kinda hint at that-- you say that the art world is deeply linked to wealth because that's who is buying the work since that's who can afford it. The thing artists operating in this world need to reckon with is that the money they're being paid from their work got to their buyer via exploitation.
I think that art schools that teach that art is less worthy if you can sustain yourself with it are engaging in malpractice. I think the people who say this are using it as a way to avoid the actual real question, which is whether it is ethical to give exploiters tokens of their wealth. The reality is that it doesnt matter-- you cant live in a better world if you dont survive long enough to get there. There are discussions to be had about everyone's complicity in capitalism, but making art and selling it isn't really meaningfully different from going to the grocery store in thet sense. If the people going off against make any money from art admitted that the problem isnt the artist getting paid but rather how the buyer got the funds, they'd have to recognize that theyre at least as complicit as anyone making a living from their art. Theres a discussion to be had, and i think art school is a place to have it, but it doesnt seem like a lot of people are willing to confront the real moral problems at hand.
it is easy to see all the evils of capitalism, but just as easy to ignore that virtually all advancements in modern society are because someone somewhere wanted to make a buck. To deny capitalism is to deny progress.
Based
This video should have been 30 seconds: in order to sustain yourself as an artist, you need to be paid to be an artist. Why not just say that and be done with it?
Regarding the comment on hypocrisy, I think that's just wrong. It is not hypocritical to critique capitalism while participating in it, because there is just no alternative but to participate in capitalism. In fact, that's the entire point of your video.
i kinda wonder why hypocrisy matters. like really who cares? our entire social order is led by people signaling virtues they don't extoll and normal people constantly have to compromise who they are and what they believe to get by. no one is without sin. anyways awesome video, i just don't understand that point.
Oingo boingo - capitalism
anti capitalism is a great marketing technique.
You kind of mixed things up a bit. At first you're talking about selling art to sustain your practice. Then you switch it up at the end and ask how you can sustain a studio practice without participating in the system. Those are two different questions.
unhinged paranoia with no basis in reality. what the hell. teacher is teaching this anywhere? don't charge for your work? marxism? nowhere is this happening. steaming hot garbage.
The decay in artistic standards is a symptom of a world plagued by state-imposed high time preference and corporatist influences, not true capitalism. When people are coerced through endless taxation and manipulated by subsidies, bailouts, and regulations, they are trained to value the immediate over the lasting. Real capitalism fosters a culture of low time preference-where individuals save, invest, and strive for enduring value, be it in business or in art.
Today’s art world is trapped by state-driven corporatism, not true market freedom. Subsidies and government-funded 'art' encourage shallow, trendy expressions rather than allowing artists to risk, innovate, and create works that can stand the test of time. True artistic value emerges from the free market of ideas, not from bureaucrats who think they know what art the public 'needs.' Until we break free from the state’s grip, we will continue to see more mediocre posturing and less timeless art that inspires across generations.
Oh. My. God. Finally, someone from my world is speaking up. WTF is creative about having no xucking money.
Just watched like 30 aeconds and gotta say art schools dont push narratives- they push establishinh a research practice and the synthesis of information in general- kids pursue what they want to discover and most realize correctly that capitalism and art are complex -- mb will watch the rest later but dunno u sound agenda motivated (engagement for algo?)
Like i regret school bc waste of money (like no jobs after bc the art world is so based on who u know they give the jobs to friends/ hot ppl )
The title is click bait (if I’m going to make a TH-cam video - and those are the rules of the game… those are the rules of the game). And, yes. I have an agenda. I’m not sure if i understand your point with regard to the agenda… I’m not supposed to? Doesn’t everyone, have an agenda? With regard to art schools “don;’t push narratives” … uh…. (Confused look on his face) uh… have you been to art school?
My man, can I put you on my resume? Even just the logo?
Sure… why not
@@StudioPractice1based
How are you to sustain your studio practice? You are supposed to be rich already before you start. We don't want bums at our expensive art and design school.
That’s a misunderstanding of who is in these schools… in my experience it’s NOT rich kids…
@@StudioPractice1 I'ts not? But that's the only way it would work. What do they eat?
This kind of thinking is using capitalism realism (head over to Mark Fisher's masterpiece "Capitalist Realism") to shut down any critical thinking about capitalism. Instead of listening to this dude in his studio telling you that criticising capitalism makes no sense because capitalism has engulfed any kind of creativity, please give a read to this really good book: Caps Lock: How Capitalism Took Hold of Graphic Design, and How to Escape from It. And yes, you should make money with your work. Yet, you MUST as a reasonable person and a sensitive person, fully criticise the insanely fucked up colonial late capitalism world we live in and the ethic behind your work.
Thanks for writing. I’m not sure where i was telling people “that criticizing capitalism makes no sense.” “You mad dog?” Sounds like you got triggered and stopped listening to what I was *actually saying. Like 3 times in the video I say that “while ideologically appealing” and “this DOES NOT MEAN that late stage capitalism ISN’T predatory” and “so far so good” ( I guess i could paste the transcript of the video here, but it would probably be easier for you to just actually watch the video) - uh… there’s this thing. It’s called the TH-cam algorithm - the title “Anti Capitalist Posturing and Stupidity in Art” is designed for the algorithm.
The thing is, the issue that i raise *IS a problem. And my point is that *most people do not form their belief system by reading books. They form their belief system by something called “in group affiliation.” (By looking at their friends and just kinda assimilating their positions on issues.) Yea… good luck getting your average design student to read Fisher’s “C.R.”… Yea… not happening bruv. What they hear and see, is “money bad.’ “My bohemian in group says working is predatory.” College professors have an *actual and *real responsibility to their students to give them counsel. To disambiguate shit. Look *most of my friends are college professors, and I love art and design school… but MANY academics have absolutely lost touch with the mechanics of how life works outside academia.
Oh… and when you say “you MUST as a reasonable person and a sensitive person, fully criticism the insanely fucked up colonial late capitalist world we live in and the ethic behind your work.” What the fuck do you think this video is doing? Or… my whole channel? It’s LITERALLY an exact realization of that sentence.
When i read your comment back i think. “All good, until we come to the last sentence.” You should add a final sentence to your comment. And it should read. “And when you DO criticize this fucked up world, your conclusions BETTER AGREE WITH MINE!”
(In all seriousness, I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to write. I mean that. God Speed)
@@StudioPractice1 Thank you for this answer. This is the complimentary add-on that the video needed in my humble opinion. I just wanted to put some shit in the fan and get a reaction from you or other viewers. I did hear the reserve towards capitalism throughout the point you were making, it just was slightly underwhelming. Looking forward to see more of you in the future.
I enjoy your sportsmanship. Best … EE
Honestly, there's an argument you could make for capitalism as foundational to the capital orders, which is the root of all commissioned works, but you didn't do that. Also, capitalism will fall with the Corinthian Order. If you don't know that, you aren't a very observant artist.
Critique of capitalism can not be reduced to "money bad". You seem to want to naturalize the market. A bit dishonest and/or misinformed.
Precisely. The performance of the sentence you quote “Money Bad!” The orator (Me) assumes a different voice, indicating that the people he disagrees with ARE SIMPLIFYING THE CRITIQUE OF CAPITALISM and in the process doing an honest critique of capitalism violence. My entire video is/was attempting to suggest that - and i quote - “This is not to suggest that late stage capitalism is *not predatory, but rather that there are degrees” - Uh… I’m arguing for a pragmatic (and more nuanced) approach to the issue then the simplistic “MONEY BAD..
MAKE MONEY WITH YOUR WORK. STOP BEING A STRUGGLING ARTIST.
no, bro, if you make money on your art you're a sellout
if you're not starving and homeless you're not a true artist
Apparently
Demonstration of sweeping conclusions, strawman technique, and confirmation bias right here
Uh…. (Geez Bruv) Fallacy Fallacy (Or Argument from Fallacy here ⬆️) Bro… just because you’ve watched a few of those Spock logic videos on TH-cam and then go on to make a list of logical fallacies does not mean that your argument itself is not constructed as a giant logical fallacy. Here add this one to your arsenal:
From ChadGPT Below: Argument from Fallacy
This occurs when someone dismisses an argument solely because it contains, or appears to contain, a fallacy without addressing the substance of the argument or providing any evidence to refute it.
In this situation, simply pointing out potential fallacies, without explaining how they apply or presenting evidence, does not automatically invalidate the argument. Just because an argument may contain a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is false-it only means the reasoning leading to the conclusion might be flawed. The key error here is assuming that if an argument is fallacious, its conclusion must be wrong.
In a debate, it's crucial to explain why the fallacy is relevant and how it affects the argument, ideally while providing supporting evidence to back up the refutation.
You really got mad at something you made up.
What evidence is there that political philosophy is being pushed institutionally in art schools? It sounds like you're feeling entitled to what other people are allowed to express through art
Read down the comment thread Holmes … Read the personal account from the “European Professor.”
Have you ever been to a college? My goodness, blind or a liar.
Great video; you've swept aside the Marxist criticisms of NFTs, and I think digital artists will have to do the same.
clown
How them boots taste
You're very confused politically. Being anti-capitalist doesn't mean you don't participate in capitalism. The reality of our situation is that we have to live within the confines of this political and economic system and some of us are more privileged as to what degree we have to participate/are affected by this system. Capitalism is the enemy of creative human endeavors, placing more value on profit rather than people and their creations. Being anti-capitalist just means one is aware of the default mode of injustice capitalism creates and is for change. I can't watch any videos on your channel after this terrible take.
Watch what you want. Don’t watch what you don’t want. So…let me see if I understand you correctly. You disagree with my “take” (my conclusion), so you “can’t watch any videos on my channel after this terrible take.” Ok. Gotcha. So… you only watch videos that confirm your worldview. ✅. Have fun with that.
@@StudioPractice1 The title of this video quite literally puts together the ideas of anti-capitalism and stupidity, which reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what anti-capitalist critique is about. I have no issue watching videos that differ from my worldview, but this isn’t simply a matter of conflicting opinions-it’s a question of how accurately and fairly arguments are represented. This video stepped out of its lane by making sweeping generalizations and propagating pro-bourgeoisie ideas that are counter to my core values of egalitarianism and equity. The critique presented here disregards the nuanced positions that many artists and designers hold. It’s not about wanting to fail or reject the market entirely; it’s about recognizing and challenging how capitalism constrains artistic freedom and how art is often reduced to a commodity within this system. Just because anti-capitalist creators sell their work or participate in the market doesn’t mean they aren’t critical of it. Anti-capitalism isn’t about total disengagement from the market or ‘purity’ of practice-it’s about acknowledging the contradictions and injustices inherent in a system that prioritizes profit over people, and advocating for change. I’m open to watching videos that present differing perspectives, but the lack of critical nuance in this one shows a superficial understanding of anti-capitalist thought. If the response to my comment is that I’m closed off or just seeking confirmation bias, that’s dismissive and doesn’t address the substance of my critique.
First of all, my dude... I guess you're unaware that the TH-cam Algorithm has a logic that favors sensationalist headlines. It's a thing called C.T.R. (Click Through Rate). Would you prefer that I titled the video "A Failed Attempt at A Relatively Nuanced Analysis of Ant-Capitalist Sentiment in Art and Design School. And While The Aforementioned "Take" Steps Outside The Overton Window of 'Acceptable' Discourse in Design School, The Intent is to Place The Student's Educational Needs Ahead of The Performative Needs of The Professor?" And to your point that the video "stepped out of it's lane." Thanks for both tone policing me and reminding me of my "lane" (scribbles notes... "next time... stay in lane." looks up. looks down. Scribbles: "Check in with Werner next time before hitting publish to make sure video is in my 'lane'"). However, as much as I genuinely enjoy our discussion, when I read your comments, I can't help but be left with the impression that you didn't *actually watch the video. Put the bong down. One of the primary points behind the video is that *too many students develop their ethos (their worldview) not through careful contemplation but through in-group affiliation. And that the professorial class have the luxury of being able to adopt beliefs that can be completely detached from the realities faced by young designers and artists outside the academy. And (whether you want to acknowledge this or not) the anti-capitalist posturing has - in some academic settings - taken on a fundamentalist character. So, while you accuse me of NOT arguing for a more nuanced approach to the issue... uh... that's the thesis of the video. But apparently, you cannot grok that because you were triggered by my clickbait title.
@@StudioPractice1 Thank you for replying! I want to clarify that I did watch the full video, and I’m responding because I engaged with your arguments in detail. My intention wasn’t to tone police, so I apologize if it came across that way. I get what you’re saying about anti-capitalist discourse sometimes feeling disconnected from the realities students face outside of academia. You also mention how students often adopt in-group mindsets uncritically, and I agree. But from my perspective, anti-capitalism challenges these rigid systems rather than reinforcing them. As you pointed out, it’s important for students to grapple with power dynamics that lead to exploitation and inequality-something they’re going to experience firsthand in the creative fields. I also think it’s possible for anti-capitalist perspectives to coexist with a realistic outlook on career-building. These ideas aren’t mutually exclusive. While I may have jumped to conclusions about your stance in the video, I see anti-capitalist critiques as a way to push for change while acknowledging the realities we operate within. My frustration comes from feeling like anti-capitalism is being dismissed as unproductive, when it can actually shed light on the exact struggles young creatives face today. So rather than viewing anti-capitalism as a “boogeyman,” I see it as a tool for critically assessing the industry and pushing for a fairer system. Artists have always been at the forefront of questioning norms, and I think they should continue to challenge the economic forces that shape their work. Again, sorry if my earlier comment seemed harsh or jumped to conclusions.
Ahhh Werner… Yer my Dude. (Think about this for a second. I never know how hard to go in the comments. LOL. Ya never know if you’re dealing with an internet troll or a bad faith argument.) I enjoy the “sport” of it all. (Sorry about the “put down the bong” comment. Ha.) In all seriousness, I don’t generally disagree with your argument. I’m not sure if how much time you’ve spent in art and design school. But, honestly - in some cases, there is no “argument” at all. It’s all in-group affiliation wave thing: troglodyte: “Money Bad.” And I’m like… “I’ve been there… you’ll starve with that shit. Be more strategic than that.” Thanks for playing my dude. ❤️
Lmao your submissive capitalist realism is just cringe xd
NICE!!! (See… you actually *get* it)… Oh, and to the “cringe” comment. I COULD NOT agree with you more. (Occupational hazard my dude)
Instructing self-sabotage is one of the sickest ways to live
Probably the only way to be truly anti-capitalist is to go off-grid, build your hut and grow your veg, not use any medicine etc, which is extremely rare. We use this system, we keep selling and buying artworks/products/skills to sustain our lives, it's only problematic when it turns extreme into forms of modern slavery, economic inequality and such things, and that's not exactly a problem of capitalism itself, but rather human desire to be in power and to dominate. I tried to understand some artists I used to hang out with, who claim to be all independent and look down on everyone with a "regular" job and kept selling the idea that nobody should work, but like 'hey, babe, you literally sleep on my couch in the apartment I pay for, you eat food that I buy and you ask for donations from those you openly hate, you sure your ideology works?!'.
Just my 2 cents.