I was simply qualifying a certain kind of way understanding art and the artist that has been prominent since around the 19th-18th century in Western world, since the beginnings of what is known as Romanticism. So prominent in fact, that people have forgotten art could be understood any differently, as your response seems to show here.
You describe a certain popular story about the "artist" who strives to externalize the ineffable. Its a good story, and it is rightly attributed to many great works and artists. But it far from exhausts what art can be or was at certain times in the past. Art can be entirely communal, or even entirely institutional/political. There have been cultures that wouldn't understand you at all when you say that only certain people are artists, and that they do something that is particular or specialized.
Even further, the idea in general of the "working" artist, one who uses their labor like any other worker, is even younger than that of the romantic artist. Most of the big artists in canon didn't need to "work" like you did, it was either things like patrons, or a lifelong devotion to a church or something.
Art is too big and too full of possibilities to define as easily as you are here.
For my part, I haven't yet seen something like a good "artistic work" from one of the models, but I see the potential in principal.
The existence of communal/institutional/political art doesn't forbid the existence of individual art. If for example I like the work of a specific painter, and want to have a reproduction of his work at home, I want his work, not anybody else's.
I'm curious about that political art you're referring to though. Any examples come to mind?
I was not trying to forbid anything, rather just reminding you not to--whether you think "egoistic" is too negative or something, I don't know, but it's certainly pretty common these days. You seemed to be saying its not egoistic, but its still necessarily this "expression of one's feelings".
The big example in my mind was art made because of and through the Catholic Church for like a millennia or so. It's function in spreading the religion, encoding meaning, etc. Still some incredible and beautiful art in some cases in my opinion.
Consider also things that we tend to classify as "crafts": knitting, sewing, embroidery. These things used to be/are rich with traditional and deterministically cultural-political meaning, but still can be beautiful--certainly pieces of art IMO.
In all these cases, there are certainly particular artists with certain abilities and feelings behind each particular instance, but that is only a sufficient, not necessary, quality to them being works of art I think. It's at least not as important as the fact that Van Gogh did Starry Night.
I'm onboard with the idea that knitting, sewing, embroidery and other crafts can be considered art. Even though it doesn't typically fall under the "fine art" umbrella doesn't mean it's not filled with know-how and love. I certainly know a few artisans who... well it's in the name, isn't it? "art-isan"?
However I truly believe that each work is heigtened by the individual who contributed to it, even though it might be a common thing.
Folk music, for example, is just a series of people liking some tune, spreading it to other people with their own take on it. One of these, very dear to me, "Wild Rover", has probably countless versions. They're all about the same story, yet I prefer some versions, sung by some specific persons, because they're linked to a memory or I just think they sound better.
Ultimately I don't disagree with you, but I firmly believe that good art/crafts/ai renderings will always be very personal and down do the individual. Sure, if we both type the same thing in Dall-E, we might get the same results. But would we type the same thing?
> I'm onboard with the idea that knitting, sewing, embroidery and other crafts can be considered art.
I didn't even realize that there was any sort of debate on this point!
> Even though it doesn't typically fall under the "fine art" umbrella doesn't mean it's not filled with know-how and love.
"Fine art" is art that serves no practical purpose. It only exists as artistic expression. But it's not even the most common sort of art. There's functional art (sewing, etc), there's commercial art (advertising, etc.), and so forth. That they aren't "fine art" doesn't carry an implication that they aren't art, or that they are some sort of inferior art. They're just art that also serves a purpose other than being art.
I have a 'fine art' degree. I embriodered, crocheted, machine knitted and beaded my work. I have made bowls and cups and forks and knives.I think your perception of what fine art is is not quite on point. Ceramics, Fibers and Jewelry/metalsmithing are majors that are considered Fine arts. Fine arts are the more traditional arts (painting,sculpture, printmaking, ceramics,photography, illustration, fibers, jewelry/metalsmithing, bookmaking as opposed to media arts (digital and timebased), and art and design (fashion, interior design, industrial design). Many 'fine artists' are multimedia artists incorporating several of the above. Although there is a craft vs art debate in certain circles it is the elite few that hang onto the idea that fine art is above craft. Art museums are full of functional art including clothing, dishes, suits of armor, etc.
Since I'm not an artist, I was really just going by the dictionary definition of the term. The very first definition is all the dictionaries I just checked is a variation of "Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility."
However, the third in them all is a variation of "Something requiring highly developed techniques and skills." That definition, though, seems uselessly broad.
So, I'd say that neither of us is wrong, exactly. We both are just ignoring the effects of context.
> Art museums are full of functional art including clothing, dishes, suits of armor, etc.
Absolutely, and as it should be. Art museums should have a greater breadth than just pure fine art. I would also add that pure fine art can, and very often does, incorporate elements of functional art.
To me, the dividing line is "is the art piece intended to be used for a practical purpose, or is it intended to be only experienced as art?" If the former, it's functional art. If the latter, it's fine art regardless of whether or not it could technically be used for a practical purpose.
My primary point, though, is that "fine art" has a technical meaning that is not synonymous with "better" or "real" art.
You describe a certain popular story about the "artist" who strives to externalize the ineffable. Its a good story, and it is rightly attributed to many great works and artists. But it far from exhausts what art can be or was at certain times in the past. Art can be entirely communal, or even entirely institutional/political. There have been cultures that wouldn't understand you at all when you say that only certain people are artists, and that they do something that is particular or specialized.
Even further, the idea in general of the "working" artist, one who uses their labor like any other worker, is even younger than that of the romantic artist. Most of the big artists in canon didn't need to "work" like you did, it was either things like patrons, or a lifelong devotion to a church or something.
Art is too big and too full of possibilities to define as easily as you are here.
For my part, I haven't yet seen something like a good "artistic work" from one of the models, but I see the potential in principal.