Orotund Brio of Art

Part I - Somber Exposition

Prior to the 20th century or so, artists were much more difficult to find. The talent for art was something culled through years and years of practice and lessons; if you were lucky, you had the privilege to study under a master, like Michelangelo or Cezanne, and sop up some of his skill. Self-taught artists who gained success were few and far between, and it was hardly a pursuit of the lower classes. As technology progressed and the general wealth of the world ballooned, the mass reproduction of art began to become more feasible, and, thus, art became more accessible with the rise of the Bauhaus and other similar endeavours to integrate art into everyday living. Art became not just reserved for the gallery-goers or private collectors. With higher exposure to art in all of its different forms, the talent for and practice of art became more common, less of an Ivory Tower exclusive hobby.
Today, I sometimes look around me and think that art is taken a bit for granted, that it is so prolific and widespread that the art of art, as a whole, has been cheapened slightly. The definition of what is and what is not art has become highly debatable, especially with the abstract and, in some cases, downright absurd nature of some modern art movements. Anyone can own a print of one of M.C. Escher's lithographs, I have one on my closet door. Who hasn't ever done a puzzle of one of Thomas Kinkade's paintings? And who can't pick up a pencil and doodle in their free time and claim to be an artist?
Not only has the exposure of art been incremented over the years, so has the hobby of art. In the notebooks of teenagers all through America, there are sure to be a few sketches in the margins – if not some original image, but an image from a favourite cartoon, comic, movie, et cetera. On the Internet, one can stumble across thousands of thousands upon thousands of websites devoted to one's own serious art work or comedic comic strip or morbid graphic novel. All in all, it almost seems like anyone with a hand and instrument to create marks (not excluding exceptions to that, even) can make their own art.
Is this necessarily a bad outcome of the progress of society? I don't particularly think that it is. Simple law of addition will tell you that the more people doing art, the more good art there will be, despite the watershed effect of an increase of bad art. Not that anyone can, any longer, say what merits good and bad quality – technical ability, creativity, originality, ingenuity, rarity? In the past centuries, correct proportion, colouration, and other elements of photorealism were the goal of artists, but the importance of such qualities has become very askew in the recent years. A provocative meaning or expression of emotion has become equally as vital to "good" art as any precision or accuracy, if not more so in some circles. And, after all, who can argue that there is nothing redeeming about a Van Gogh or Munch, despite being more emotional and abstract than a Goya or Van Eyke?
With the advent of the Internet, the distribution of one's art became tenfold simpler than the past; it is no longer required to find a gallery, publisher, or any outside assistance. You can get your art out into the world on your own, with nothing more than a computer, scanner, and connection to the ‘Net. The average citizen can make art in their spare time and hang it in a virtual gallery, all while holding a day job as a source of reliable income. Out of all of the avenues of art, I believe the biggest one to be impacted has been the business of comic stripping.

Next Post

Part II - Embodiment of a Vociferous Zeitgeist: Online Comics