The only categorical difference between a child’s painting and a professional illustration is that the latter has value as a commodity. If that’s how art is being defined here then we can dismiss this opinion as deeply unserious.
Exactly. Kids are absolutely making art. Ask the parents how it makes them feel when their child hands them a drawing of the two of them doing something nice. My parents saved everything and they treasure those memories.
I just don’t even know how you would argue that they aren’t making art. What purer form of artistic endeavor could you name than a child being creative for its own sake? Things like technical skill, novelty, complexity, etc. are qualities that art has, but they have nothing to do with the definition itself. If a child creates something with artistic intent, that’s art. Arguing otherwise is navel-gazing prescriptivism, the same basic argument as Roman statue fetishism and just as tedious.
The bourgeoisie have profitable opinions not serious ones.
The opinion link is a tweet that just states the specified opinion almost verbatim.
"Art is not defined by the means of production"
I will punch a removed in the face I swear. It fucking is. It's a skill like any other and his definition of why it "isn't" is literally how we determine is something "is" a commodity and subject to the labour theory of value.
Just because art is worth different amounts to different people doesn't mean it is worthless. These techbros shitting all over my profession with their generic AI art that can make like, 3-4 generic anime looking faces and absolutely nothing original make my blood boil. Probably a good thing I run in very different circles to these fuckers. I'm not a violent man, but these are the sort of fuckers I would get into a fistfight at a party with.
