It's no longer art if it's for commercial purposes.
Those who have the courage necessary to become artists, and renounce the vulgarity of the world, will continue to do so.
Those who delude themselves into thinking they're creating anything while being employed in commerce, will be managed out.
The deep crevice where the two meet and manage to find compromise, will continue to be filled by wealthy, independent patrons.
Asking others to think and do as we wish is silly.
Ironically, if it's that important to you, why don't you start giving monetary support directly to artists? Changing one's own actions is more impactful than trying to change those of the many (and the prior is more likely to lead to the latter, than if one were to focus solely on the latter).
I think your definition of art is just a partial one. As an example, the characters drawn for an RPG are works of art. They are receiving monetary value in return for that art. So its commercial/entertainment art, and a place where many artists aspire to be.
Your definition is what I would call "culture defining art", which is art that some part of the culture identifies with (or more specifically, a person's way of communicating that they can identify with). The currency here is tribalism, i.e. it creates a way for two or more people to bond together through what they feel and think.
>Those who have the courage necessary to become artists, and renounce the vulgarity of the world, will continue to do so.
Courage is trumped by needs. If they need pay rent, buy food, support a family, pay for a car, etc, then no matter what they are sacrificing some part of their time in order to obtain those things. Thus any artist who can make money off their work would have more time for their work, and possibly grow faster.
>Those who delude themselves into thinking they're creating anything while being employed in commerce, will be managed out.
Seems like you're too attached to the idea of what an artist is and isnt?
>Ironically, if it's that important to you, why don't you start giving monetary support directly to artists?
Because Im not building something that is taking away from their dreams (e.g. living off their work/passion).
<side thoughts>
I wonder if people are aware of the consequences of automating creativity? IMO humans need human input in order to stay human. The less and less we come into contact with humanity, the less human we'll become.. and at the very end of that long path is a bag of chemical reactions that's forgotten the meaning of "how are you?" [1]
Which made me think, perhaps its the inefficiencies of life that is what makes us human
[1] This is because some company/companies will realize/have realized that tuning the machine to become most efficient at creating what the masses want will be the most profitable path.
That's not my definition of art. That's your take; and you're projecting your (mid-brow) sensibilities onto me.
I don't define art. It's a sense, not a logical box you can put things in.
Receiving money for your art is one thing; going out of your way to use it as a means of living is another. The work immediately becomes tainted, and is no longer art.
It could be an amazing piece, but if your line of work is receiving money for what you create, you're an artisan, not an artist.
A character drawn for an RPG is not art. It is not a work of art. It is a graphic designed for utility. That is all it will ever be.
The sublime nature of art is there because it transcends everyday vulgarity. One transcends mere personage and becomes an artist by being in the world, but not of it.
The more money an artisan makes, the more his craft suffers. He almost always improves his technical ability through this process (otherwise, he would not make money), but loses his soul, and will never be an artist. He does not have the fiber in his heart that allows one to suffer through all manner of anguish, and material poverty, to dedicate oneself towards something above oneself; so he settles for being an artisan.
I can understand not being educated on these matters. But the amount of misplaced confidence you carry, writing on things you know nothing about is detestable.
If your inquiries into the nature of humanity and what it means to be are genuine (and not mis-attributed self-importance), my recommendation is to read and listen more, and talk less.
Matthew B. Crawford's works are a decent bridge into all that, for the modern middle crust who feels something stirring in his soul, and needs a direction.
If you feel like your assessment of your own abilities is honest, then I would completely skip anything modern, and begin with Burke's A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful. I will even buy you an unabridged copy and have it shipped to you, if you're a starving artist that cannot afford it (and my respect for you would increase, all the same).
Those who have the courage necessary to become artists, and renounce the vulgarity of the world, will continue to do so.
Those who delude themselves into thinking they're creating anything while being employed in commerce, will be managed out.
The deep crevice where the two meet and manage to find compromise, will continue to be filled by wealthy, independent patrons.
Asking others to think and do as we wish is silly.
Ironically, if it's that important to you, why don't you start giving monetary support directly to artists? Changing one's own actions is more impactful than trying to change those of the many (and the prior is more likely to lead to the latter, than if one were to focus solely on the latter).