>Illustration isn't art https://www.youtube.com/wat

I think most "art" people agree illustration is art. I think there's a bias towards types of art, anime being one of them. Of course its bs

>>3066137
>Goes to school for fine arts
>Complains when they want him to try to produce fine art
Really makes you think.

It didn't sound like they were criticizing his technical skills, he just didn't do what they told him to do and they gave him a bad grade. Just because they're pompous cunts doesn't mean that they're not in the right in this instance.

>>3066137

It's merely a question of semantics. I knew an illustrator and the dude insisted that he wasn't an artist (from what I understood, his reasoning was that he delivered what people wanted, akin to a ghost writer). There's been numerous cultures which used different words for artists or never made the distinction between ars and tekne. Call yourself a musician and tell them that it's a divine gift and that the four evangelists are whispering in your ligameme.

File: image.jpg (76KB, 600x687px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x687px

>>3066137
The weakness here is that there is no high concept or spiritual allegory at work. We want artists to have a political persuasion -- a clear vantage point on the world -- which goes beyond the worldview of the hairdresser.

You can find spiritual allegory in landscape paintings, still life, or even in manga, but not in this form of glamour painting!

>>3066185
>that pic
ooo much hourglass such skull very vanitas 2spoopy

>>3066185
You are just a sad person who automatically rejects any worldview that sees the world in a positive light.

>>3066191
That's another issue entirely, spiritual allegory can be cliché or given small updates but it still forces us to perceive something beyond the physical world. I think this artist's abstract portraits are really good actually, with a little more context or symbolism he could become a great watercolorist. It just requires a definite viewpoint, possibly some irony or counterpoint.

>>3066154
However they're both in the wrong.
1. Dude's so because he's one of the usual "TEACHERS HATE ME BECAUSE I BLAH BLAH BLAH" douches, he went there and presented shitty artsy drawings with little to no personality.
2. They're wrong too because they (apparently) didn't constructively criticize anything he did and they filled him with generic advice on how to make something unusual for the sake of it.
>"the palettes are too harmonic"
Basically:
>"try to do something weird"
Trust me, if he made a minimalist à pois painting with complementary colors, they would've praised the harmony of it.

However this is the truest moment from the video (CC transcription):
>Another reason is that they go with the flow that is dictated by the market, while constantly denying a market in the first place...
>Professors consider art like manga or just pretty pictures [...] often to be tacky or just commercial and therefore inauthentic and without deeper meaning.
In short they consider it art but not "real" art, and DO want you to be commercial - just the other type of commercial. This is the mindset of the burning trash that is the contemporary art scene.
If there were a billion 29,99$ "table rocks" in an Urban Outfitters store and a billion shittily drawn "aesthetical rock #314..." in an expo on a white pedestal that would be sold at an auction for 25 to 30$ each, they'd tell you the second is intrinsically superior.

And I'm not even saying that contemporary art can't be good. It's just that in the end a fine arts professor probably wants you to do some unconventional shit and kick you out of the door.
Just look. None of these things are even remotely original. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slade/shows/2016
>Oh look, one of my students went to smash tombstones with a bat. Naked. It's not like Chris Burden or some other fucking dude hasn't been doing this shit since the '70s.

Fine art: innovation and development to research true beauty, not "just weird".

>>3066154
>>3066162
I would agree, but I see a lot of this from youtubers that studies fine arts. A lot of pompuous cunts telling them that they suck, and that anime isn't art, yatta yatta, yet here I am, I'm friends with this girl who studied fine arts in college, and she's always calling me up to help her give lessons on anatomy, and perspective and what not, cause I'm much better than she is, and I have a much thorougher understanding of the fundamentals than she does, and my art is MUCH better than hers, by her own admission, and I'm completely self taught. She completely lacks the capacity to accurately capture realism when we do figure drawings with a model. She can only do this fine arts abstract nonsense.

If these fine arts college teachers actually knew what art actually fucking was, they wouldn't be churning out such miserable excuses for artists who can't fucking draw or paint properly.

>your picture shouldn't be too pretty, that's too commercial
Literally something one of those teachers told that dude in the video. Also, that dude apparently is doing art school so he can get a degree as you need a degree to be able to teach art in Uni.

I'm convinced that fine arts twats are nothing by a bunch of self-righteous hipsters who are jelly of professional artists with more talent and skill than they. So they slam any commercial art as inferior to their self-wanking abstract bullshit.

>>3066204
But art that's sold at galleries is also commercialized, just for a different market.

File: image.jpg (80KB, 583x800px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 583x800px

>>3066194
What if I told you that glamour wasn't inherently positive?

>>3066214
True, it is one of the things I meant.

>>3066215
What if I replied to you with a statement that entirely misses the mark?

>>3066210
>So they slam any commercial art as inferior to their self-wanking abstract bullshit

It's both an ego problem and a way to sell their stuff at a higher price.
To take an example concerning the arts, some comic book writers talk about their stuff as the ninth Art and are writing 'graphic novels' instead of mere comics. Why do they want their stuff to be considered as another kind of art, if not for the prestige attached to it? or for Alan Moore, why does he want his stuff to be litterature when I already like his comics, I don't need it to be considered litterature and studied at Uni to read them. Yet some Herge originals for Tintin and Snowy were sold for hundred of thousands $, that's what happens when the status is changed because of its relevance. It was worth a small % of that sum when it was a work for a belgium newspaper, but suddenly it's real art and worth a lot.

I should ask a philosopher to explain this to me but he would probably go on a long rant about why philosophy is actually important instead.