This isn't as much directed to you as it is to some of the commenters on here. I'm pretty sure minimalism, abstract, surreal and caricature art is just as much ART as technically accurate illustration and realism. I'm tired of people whining about this. Art is art. Some people need to grow up and learn to accept different styles and medium.
PERSONALLY, I like minimal ultra-flat cartoons. I've seen people bend the art styles to some pretty unique things. To me, if it's unique, it's great. But I suppose if people prefer anatomical and technical accuracy over originality, that's fine too.
I find it funny how with "art" today, I would be able to throw random splatter everywhere or make tons of random shapes, both of which could easily be done by anyone (especially the splatter) and then make tons of money off of it, all because I made up some bullcrap story as to how it "portrays my inner being" or "exemplifies the remorse and depression I have had because my wife divorced me for a chimpanzee eating koala from space."
Actually you wouldn't succeed no matter how big your efforts are to do so. Even though some art appears to be easily reproduced you simply ignore the fact that they are the outcome of a professional artist's work, in other words, someone who dedicated years and years of his life to engage in art in general and in the development of his own skills creating art. They elaborated a way to express themselves, their perspective and dozens of things I can't think of right now through their work. Thus, you don't have a bum pouring colour on canvas making up a shallow story like yours why everybody should masturbate to his creation, but an artist whose development made him use this rather minimalistic way and an audience who appreciates or not his ways of exactly doing so with respect to a background of information that must be acquired first.
Furthermore, you first need to establish yourself to a specific milieu before you are able to earn some money.
Sorry you really have no idea of how the fine arts world functions nowadays. While I agree with what everything you said about how it should be it is not so that way. After working at a fine arts gallery for two years and going to innumerable amount of gallery openings and events and shows and yada yada. There is a lot of BS out there that makes Destructo's comment completely valid and true.
To succeed in the fine arts world today, all you need is the right connections and be a good sells man.
And yes there is a lot of true artists out there, that really have a passion for art and a real desire to communicate and share experiences with the public, but sadly the amount of pseudo-artists that are only in it for the money and be part of the status-quo is way bigger.
Also keep in mind that I'm only referring to fine arts, not talking about illustration, concept design, visual development side of art.
Mister, the validity of what I've written depends on the point of view we are going to consider examining this topic, which is something you have already noticed, but only slightly addressed.
IMO DestructoWad isn't quite happy about the general development of what you referred to as fine arts. So regarding him we have to look at a perspective that deals with the history of arts. I assume that in his opinion some abstracted ways to put an oeuvre on a canvas lack totally of artistic craftsmanship, such that everybody, even a John Doe who has no interest in arts at all, would be able to reproduce the artwork or at least the method. But he is only considering the outcome, in other words a canvas, and he doesn't take into account all the trajectories that lead to such a specific canvas. Back in the days when abstracted art was introduced it was created by people who were well educated in arts and were highly skilled in their craftsmanship. The could have done other, or as Destructo would say, better, but they didn't choose to. They were heavily criticized and where I live even threatened, but they resisted, and kept on performing their unique techniques they developed. They did their part in enlarging freedom we can enjoy today, and this must be respected. This is why I replied to Destructo. I accept that he dislikes this kind of art and enjoys other, but if you check out his reply you will see that he enjoys art only in a narrower perspective, which is totally fine with me. Mona Lisa and The Last Supper are both well executed art works and are very close to the underlying concept, but they are from Renaissance. They faced other problems, and thus they performed art in means necessarily for them. However, that doesn't mean that they have invented the universal key for developing art. Art is reflecting to many things that happen in the world that you can't narrow it down. TL;DR Abstracted art is a legitimate way of performing art.
You are facing another problem. I mentioned it partly in my initial comment, but didn't go into it. I called it milieu and you call it more appropriate than me connections. However, you placed it the right time. It's a problem of today. Of course, such artists benefited from the development of the history of art, and thus they have a walk-over doing bull shit art. I personally have met people like these. They are quite annoying, and also ignorant. Some of them think art is about extravagant concepts which breaks taboos MATURE e.g. a on stage performance in which the pope getting some lessons taught by Madonna wearing a strapon MATURE. But that only reveals that they are uneducated and have poorly developed. What can you do about it? Probably nothing as long as people buy their stuff. But this is how the world works, and the problem is not solely limited to art. TL;DR Yes, there are people who do crappy art.
Maybe I didn't explain myself fully but it was no intention of mine to catalog all abstract art as being a less art form. There are many master artists that break away from realism and create some beautiful abstract paintings or sculptures. I, myself am more of a fan of impressionism and expressionistic styles. The problem that relies with abstractism is that in the untrained eye it looks easy. But in fact it is much harder to do than realism. In order to abstract, or simplify, one needs a complete understanding of the nature of their subject matter. The point that, I wanted to make was that, sadly, in today's world you don't need any artistic training to become a successful artist.
You did, and I've understood. The first paragraph of mine, which is actually the second, was partly addressed to Destructo. I've written it to you to emphasise on both our understanding and misunderstanding which I sensed in your first reply.
The other was completely addressed to you. It is true that in today's art business you find so-called artists who royally lack in skill. But in today's world money matters, and if their numbers work out, they are successful independently of their actual skill, as marketing and connections have the power to outplay skills.
Of course, I am coming from an extremely cynical perception, point of view, whatever you may wish to call it, on the ideas of modern art. Usually, when I hear the word "art" (in reference to primarily a professional art museum), I think of pieces such as The Last Supper, or the Mona Lisa. I often do not think of the pieces such as the paint splatters, due to the fact that they're, well, random splatters. And while I can see where you're coming from in your argument, it still boggles my mind at how these materials maintain their status as art in the professional realm.
My apologies, for I did not realize you were replying to elhoyonegro's comments until I came back to this page's comment section. And, while I do admit my views are a bit narrower, cynical, and more critical, it is rather annoying how with the art industry today it is no longer "what you know" but "who you know," which can make it extremely difficult for artists that I have seen that I personally feel deserve fame have virtually no recognition at all. Oh, and as a side note, I appreciate that this is an actual intelligent debate rather than the all too familiar cursing fest that most internet arguments are.
There is no need for apologies, but thank you for your kindness. I've first replied to alhoyonegro, and immediately afterwards you, as properly structuring my thoughts made me follow this direction.
Yeah, I've had the feeling that your view is a little to narrow. This is why I've written you. Exploring new things is a cool thing to do, which is something I'd like to introduce you to do. It helps overcoming prejudices nobody is immune from, and is a certainly a rewarding process.
True that. I understand your concerns. But IMO is has less to do with art itself, than misguiding we follow according to our human social behaviour.