>"There was a time when the artist withdrew to a bare

This doesn't sound true, to be honest. Artists have always had to deal with requirements and deadlines. Thought it might have been a goal (and still is for some), it's not like renaissance painters painted for the sole sake of "enlightenment" and survived on fumes and thin air. Artists were for the most part commissioned by powerful people who wanted to see neat stuff.

It's pretty much been a constant throughout history that art has been produced for "entertainment", however you want to define that. Even religious art during the Middle Ages was commissioned, not simply done because artists were particularly religious or inspired (look up the history of patronage if you're curious, it's always been a big deal for art to be commissioned by nobles, the wealthy, and religious institutions).

The one thing that has changed in the past century is that art is a lot more accessible to the common folk, but that doesn't mean the way it's made has radically changed. The timelines are different, the demands are different, yes. People who work for the entertainment industry will spend a day to a few weeks on a piece, instead of years (though keep in mind the "final" products, films and games, still make years to make)

What hasn't changed is the "purpose" of art and the relationship people have to it. Are you less likely to reach enlightenment through your work because you're making a videogame or an ad campaign instead of a single painting? Debatable, especially if you look at the impact that the works of certain artists have had on the entertainment industry. Were people who commissioned artists before looking specifically for "enlightened" art? If you consider the subject matter of most artworks pre-dating the modern era, fuck, probably not.

Saying the focus of today's art has changed is like saying today's music has gotten shitty compared to what it was in the 70s/60s/1700s/whatever.. Greater or more fondly remembered works tend to endure, while trash falls into obscurity.

As for what ends up making "great" artists, it's a complete crapshoot. The one constant I can see throughout the ages is that more successful artists than not have benefited from a formal art education, but besides that it's whatever gets you inspired and makes you produce results.

Seeing as some people thrive on constant stress and activity I can't see seclusion as being the ideal environment for "the artist". It might be ideal for you, but that's relative to every person.

>>2505341
i had always like this quote from xenakis

Imitation is an existential mistake. So, to escape from the trivial cycle of relationships in music, the musician, the artist, must be absolutely independent, which means absolutely alone.

>>2505341
>What does Loomis mean by this

It means "hunker down and get shit done"