it's sad but that's how everything functions. it should be different but there is no way to make it so
It's nice to have studies to confirm what we've already known.
That being said, as an artist, you can prop up your chances by being prolific. Put enough work out there, and chances are you'll eventually catch the eye of someone more popular than you. Then they share your work with people they know and their demographic, and that propels you forward in popularity. Keep this cycle going with more and more popular people sharing your work, and eventually you get to the top.
Art especially falls prey to the snowball effect - you have to be popular to get popular. The more popular you are, the more popular you'll become.
The hard part is getting that first launch. And if you don't already know popular artists, then being prolific is probably your best bet to get there, if that's your goal.
The thing is, you need to network but you can't network too hard, people can see if you're trying to get close to them because they're famous
I mean duh.
That's always been true of modern art, it's not supposed to be meritocratic, like the illustration industry is (somewhat). Someone like Picasso was influential more because of the circles he got known in, because he was an activist, not really because of how the paintings actually looked like.
It's the meaning and the philosophy beind the paintings, combined with all his many connections in the art world, that made the difference between an old guys weird painting and immensely influential artistic statements.
Already in the early 20th century, avant garde intellectual artistic circles were very far from the academical competition of whoever painted the human body better wins.
From my experience in the art world it’s less networking and just make friends and be kind to everyone you meet. Life has a way of bringing you opportunities when you’re open to people.
I pretty much landed my job because a friend got a position from another friend, who helped me get a position as an artist. There’s definitepy people I know who are better artists but are just not social at all.
I think the article doesn't make a clear distinction between "commercial art" and "avant garde modern art" and a lot of people are mixing the two when they're really two completely unrelated fields.
Because nowadays, especialy in the world of illustration, commercial art is more meritocratic than ever. Artstation places everyone's portfolio next to eachother, the clients pick the best ones. Things like asking for CVs is even disapearing, because it's all about the art, and almost nothing else. Connections can help but it means nothing without a good portfolio.
In the world of modern art though? no experience over there but I bet it's 100% about connections to get your work in a gallery.
Trust me dude this is not true at all. The concept art industry is very based on who you know. It’s way harder than the modern art because you have to be highly skilled, and generally highly social.
There are a plethora of fantastic artists that do not get jobs because they have no connections.
semi related but every now and then some one i dont inow follows me on twitter, if i see work on their page that looks interesting ill follow them back and share their work with my friends. i feel like there are opportunities like this to spread your work. im just one person but i might share it with 4 people.
if you get enough followers this way itll naturally continue to grow then its just a matter of how you interact and engage with those followers. the internet makes it easier to get your work out there, but also easier for it to get lost in the mess. however being famous isnt about who you are or what you do but how many people know your name.
Big disagree.
I didn't say connection didn't matter, just that they matter less than they use to. And they will never work if your portfolio is bad or if you don't perform.
Imagine being a modern art student in a small. How do you break in your "industry" without connections? They're uncomparable fields.
That doesn't change the fact that the merit of portfolio matters more in this industry than most. The offer (number of people who want in the industry) is too high and the demand (number of jobs) is too low.
For sure but lower skilled artist can still Get a job over a higher skilled artist because of connections. You still have to be skilled butI myself have shortcomings in my skills that I’m still working on compared to say my friend. He’s better than me but wasn’t able to get a job because he didn’t network as well.
But yes in illustration/concept art, if your not highly skilled you won’t make it in.
that's true, I maybe made it sound like a hard rule too much in my first post. But theses are still general trends that you see if you compare modern art vs commercial art, then vs now.
I can't speak for the professional level, but at my school there were a few composers that went to the big parties and had good relationships with the heads of the biggest department, and their music was exposed to and pored over by the majority of the students. I get really good feedback from pretty much everybody that's heard my music, but barely anybody came to my senior concert because I just didn't have a very large circle of friends.
I got my job because of who I knew, twice in 2 years lol. No big-shot stuff but even basic friendly connections help
Honestly its just like anything. Networking is huge, who you know is how you'll get places. Its the same for almost any job or work field. Aside from the Marines I've never had to apply for a job, I've always got hired right off the bat from people I know within the company or have built a relationship with.
I guess the problem with Modern Art that the analysis and structure of it is so subjective, it’s no surprise that skill is the least important thing, and social connections are more important.
We’re social creatures and our opinions are going to be swayed by who we hang out with. So if I’m an Modern artist with lots of friends, more people are going to like my art(or at least pretend to) because they like me.
With no objective grounding your opinion will sway much easier. Where as representational art has far more objectiveity.
So even if somebody doesn’t like figure painting or character illustrations, they might say they aren’t interested it but always follow up with “They’re definitely very talented/skilled though”
Yeah modern art really smashed the definition of what "value" art has.
Who gets to become a "famous" modern artist really becomes about relationships that artist has in the field, and not what their art objectively evocates. And when you have a limited amount of gallery to showcase modern art, only the most famous/the ones with the most influence gets to be displayed.
(There's a lot of modern art that's also just pure tax evasion, with galleries hyping artists to rise prices, and the ultra rich buying overpriced bs because there's no tax on art in most countries but shh see it's too intellectual for us, we can't get it)
Honestly I actually like that it exists though. I’m not interested in most modern art but I’ve been to galleries and seen some cool things amongst the garbage(literal).
It’s super pretentious but I wouldn’t want a world where it doesn’t exist. I like the balance of art in life between art that is more objective/representational/skilled... and art that is emotional/creativite/nonsense.
I absolutely agree. I love commercial figurative art, but theres a whole spectrum of expression it cant explore, and that's the role of modern art (in theory, when it doesnt taken over by capitalist bs). As I said earlier, they server different roles and both are needed.
I mean, what is meritocratic with art anyhow? Art proliferation is always gonna be a mess in capitalism
Why would art proliferation be any different under any other system
Art material cost wouldn't be a thing, art sales incentives wouldn't be a thing, sales based trends wouldn't be a thing, people wouldn't be looking for "objective" value quantity in art, etc
It wasn't any different under other systems dude.
explain??
Under feudalism, you had to be within the reach of lords willing to pay for said art and willing to fund your education and art pieces. Otherwise, you were a fucked starved artist with nothing.
Older works were often done at the behest of incredibly important people or figureheads, most of the surviving art and statues are directly linked to those near the top of oligarchical structures.
Those are just different examples of art being interfered with by interests. Doesn't really contradict what I was saying.
“Material costs wouldn’t be a thing”
Communism (or a similar system) doesn’t mean things are suddenly free. If all art were funded by everyone, I have a hard time believing artists would suddenly be free to make whatever for whatever cost - someone would be managing an art budget, deciding which projects get a go-ahead and which don’t. And when “good” art is so hard to judge, how do you even decide who gets to be an artist in such a system? Could I just start creating art works with free materials?
I also have a hard time believing art is really being that constrained by capitalism - go to the MOMA (or any other museum in NYC), or alternatively here in Denmark (both great museums), Louisiana or Arken, and it’s hard to spot exactly where artists are just going for marketability.
I'd say art materials would be at very least a lot more accessible to a certain extent. While it may not make sense resource wise for everyone to have access to vanta black tech, there would be less or no artificial value on art goods
Does this apply to furry porn artists
You kid, but theres some artists that cannot get away from the same angles/expressions for all their art, but rack in fuckloads of dosh by being popular.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
