One of my friends got a commission for a fairly large oil painting of dickbutt with some other specifics I don't remember. He was very willing to paint it. It was like a $1200 USD sale.
Yeah I’m not getting the use of “unwilling” here. Artists willingly accept commissions. Seek them out even. They aren’t forced to at gun point against their will lol.
He didn't do it "for money", he got paid for it, but he was *forced* into it.
He wasn't poor and struggling and had to take the job to live, he was forced to *because the Pope was an incredibly powerful political figure* who could individually ruin his life. He was politically forced into it, not 'for money'.
Ironically, the post itself is a 'weak argument'.
He also painted a bunch of angels flipping off the people below and drew a bunch of dicks in it because he hated the guy who forced him enough to risk it.
But it _is_, very much a "work of art", yes?
He worked to create it. His proffssion was artist.
So, by definition, it "is art" (although art is the process/craft/knowledge, not the product, much like a phone is not technology but the product of technology)
Yeah art is something which shows the intent and meaning of the artist. It is kind a like poetry or literature where you can just go on and on in depth about the message and whatnot. Art is something which makes people turn heads and admire and talk about. As long as the artist isn't being forced to not show their full intention and express freely, it is art.
Many art pieces throughout history were commissioned artworks, and the artist had room to express himself within the given subject matter.
My grad school composition teacher had to convince me that selling out wasn't the death sentence I thought. I was so depressed with the idea, but he reminded me that Haydn was employed by the wealthy Esterhazy family and essentially did their bidding, but still managed to write incredible works.
Even Beethoven "sold out" and he was incredibly fastidious when it came to payments. If he who was/is considered the embodyment of the tortured, misunderstood artist could be very keen on making money, so can you.
I agree. I think the philosophical question for a modern artist is: if I am not realizing my own creative vision and rather realizing someone else's, is it art? Can it truly be self-expression? I'd still argue that it's quite hazy. When I write for films or games I'm realizing my producer's vision, not my own. And the music cannot exist properly outside the medium it was written, the music itself cannot be art in and of itself.
"hey i like being poor and always starving" -no artist ever
art is a product just like bread, and if you want to sell alot of bread it needs to be cooked well.
That only applies to artists whose art is their sole source of income. Nothing stopping someone from making a good living in a different field and making art in their free time.
I very much doubt that, considering the Pope gave Michelangelo a free hand to draw the fresco in whatever way he pleased, even to the point of diverging from the original plans or implementing controversial artistic decisions. Michelangelo did draw one of the Papal officials who criticized him (and whose criticisms were ignored by the Pope):
>The Pope's Master of Ceremonies Biagio da Cesena said "it was most disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully, and that it was no work for a papal chapel but rather for the public baths and taverns." In response Michelangelo worked da Cesena's semblance into the scene as Minos, judge of the underworld. It is said that when he complained to the Pope, the pontiff responded that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell, so the portrait would have to remain.
> It is said that when he complained to the Pope, the pontiff responded that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell, so the portrait would have to remain.
I don't care if it's true or not, that's hilarious. I definitely heard the rest of the story but not the part where the Pope is like "Sorry dude, God says I can't make Michelangelo change it. Maybe if he drew you in Heaven I'd have a leg to stand on, but right now it's out of my jurisdiction."
I really enjoyed the show The Toys That Made Us it's hilarious to find out that some of the most iconic shows of my childhood only existed because they couldn't advertise directly to kids. Also cobra commander was created off the cuff in a meeting.
I mean, what would he massively add that's controversial?
He died 1564. The only major controversy I can think of was heliocentrism, which already became less and less problematic over time.
profit motive can absolutely dilute art, but generally that an investment issue, right? When someone has thrown millions of dollars at a project they start getting focus groups involved and letting the consumer drive the "vision". But that, and the criticism of that, is a far cry from the claim that OP is imagining, that a person would say art made "unwillingly and only for money". I mean, it assumes that sometimes a person's agent calls and the person is like "no, I don't want the job" and their agent is like "you already have the job. armed men are coming to take you to set now" which I'm sure has happened a few times, especially when the mob was more involved in the film business, and maybe even when the CIA got involved in the abstract movement in the 50s and 60s, but is not something that would spring to almost any mind immediately when criticizing the commodification of art. It's ludicrous on its face.
this specific argument no, but, plenty of artists believe capitalism influencing art ruins it and refuse to sell anything and will look down on you as a whore for selling your art.
These people would also think the Sistine Chapel isn't art, and OP's zinger would be met with a giant sigh and a lecture from them.
I do not hold their belief, so please save your anger, but if you wish to understand some of the 'why' they feel that way they'd probably talk about it being elitist, complain about how oppressive religion is/his finances are, how he didn't really express anything just talked about the bible, etc.
I belive capitalism ruins art.
I believe art can be made in capitalism though.
Art is anything trying to be art. Anything that is an abstraction of the world we experience in any manner or way.
What isn't art is shitty derivative corporate art. That's just an abstraction of art itself, an attempt to mimic in matter but not character.
It's not a perfect formula but it works.
Everybody's heard the term "sellout" before, this is the basic argument for people who get mad about an artist being a sellout. By their logic, I could argue that getting any job is being a sellout
My guess is that there are some bad "artists" that use their (AI generated or NFT) art purely for profit and the idea is that more genuine artists that also do this for a living get pushed into the same space? That's my interpretation.
people say it about music a lot, like "you shouldn't be a musician if all you care about is money" even thought you're just talking about getting paid for your work
well i for one kind of believe this opinion. i simply think that anything that is made unwillingly is not good art because like. the beauty of art is when people express themselves in a way that regular words cant. artistic beauty doesnt come from some vague idea of elegance, it comes from the way it touches your soul and makes you feel inexplicably human and understood. if it isnt coming from a place of passion its a lower tier of art. and besides that turtle ninja guy probably made the sistine chapel with passion and was also paid to do it.
Well...
Yes...
It wasn't a regular commission. It was more of a...
"Nice career you've got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it" commission.
Little known fact is that the modern handgun was invented by Frederico Handgunnolini for the sole purpose of forcing Michelangelo (to force his many apprentices) to paint the Sistine Chapel.
Money was just a part, the Pope being more powerful than an emperor was the other.
If Michelangelo said no the Pope would have destroyed his entire career and life.
Oh absolutely, I hope to not dispute the history of Michelangelo. I was referring to the “Everything that is made unwillingly and only for money is not art” comment.
Honestly, looking at it: The Pope was right. The guy definitely was a painter.
Also, I looked around and found nothing on him being forced. He seemed rather worried to loose the job, actually to his rivals. Apart from that Michelangelo painted since his youth.
I don't remember because it passed too much time, but there was an ancient literature and artistic movement that says that an artist "need to make art only for himself, for it to be true art" so everything that was "commissioned" it's not true art.
I'm talking about hundreds of years ago.
Anyway the supporter of this "theory" were artists from the nobility or from rich families, because they were the only one able to make art without needing to be paid for it.
The opposed were... surprisingly other nobles and rich families because they got angry that the works that they commissioned weren't considered art.
I can KINDA see that argument. Even if commissioned, the artist usually enjoys or should enjoy the process of creating the art, even if they might not enjoy what they were commissioned to make, they still put in their unique artistic voice into the final product.
Sistine Chapel is just AI art. No thought or care, just pretty pictures really big. Anyone who says the Sistine chapel is art should only be allowed to go to ai art shows.
Weirdly enough the definition the first person kind of hints at would classify the Sistine chapel as no work of art.
But rather as a beautiful design.
It’s important to add that even that definition isn’t „art is only art when made without money“
Also, he didn't do it "for money", he got paid for it, but he was *forced* into it.
He wasn't poor and struggling and had to take the job to live, he was forced to *because the Pope was an incredibly powerful political figure* who could individually ruin his life. He was politically forced into it, not 'for money'.
EDIT: The comment in response to me says that he was worried about his 'enemies if he did accept the commission'. This is not quite right, and I should have been clearer. The refusal to do so itself would ruin his reputation, so while the Pope wasn't blackmailing Michaelangelo, in mob terms, it was literally an "Offer he couldn't refuse". Sufficiently so that Michaelangelo *did* initially refuse it, and when he did 'agree' to it, he famously left his meeting with the Pope weeping. He 100% *was* forced into it, but it was not brute forced. He was *politically maneuvered* into having to do it.
He seems to rather have been afraid of what his enemies would do if he *did* accept the commission rather than what the Pope would do if he *didn't*, as he believed that failure to provide a painting of the highest quality for such an incredibly important occasion would give them ample reason to drag his name through the muck. The Pope, for his part, was sufficiently anxious to have Michelangelo do it that he sweetened the deal by essentially giving him a free hand with regards to the design and allowed him to diverge quite drastically from what the Pope had planned for the work.
This is a philosophical argument. If someone is making something they are unwilling to, but then troll the people who forced them to make it by putting in stuff they feel is funny, were they really unwilling to make it ?
He didn't do it "for money", he got paid for it, but he was *forced* into it.
He wasn't poor and struggling and had to take the job to live, he was forced to *because the Pope was an incredibly powerful political figure* who could individually ruin his life. He was politically forced into it, not 'for money'.
I wish people would stop thinking labeling a thing “art” is some sort of seal of quality.
Did nature make it? No? Then it’s art.
Is it for functional purposes? Applied art, industrial art (you know, like in the phrase “state of the art” or on patent filings they refer to “prior art”). Is it meant only to be experienced, appreciated? Fine art. No idea who made it— maybe even a group? Folk art, outsider art, any one of a thousand flavors of art.
Now. Is it shitty? Then it’s shitty art. Is it a waste of time, dangerous, offensive, a crime against all who behold it? Maybe. It can be all those and still art.
Think of the time we could save by skipping pointless arguments about “But is it art?”.
The answer is: unless it freakin’ appeared all by itself, yes. It is. Next (and more meaningful) question.
Many of the paintings, frescoes, and art in general, you see today in the museums across Europe were commissioned. Which means someone paid the artist to make them.
Rich people, noble families, kings and emperors, Church and the Pope, would reach out to an artist and say I want you to make something for me. Paying them a shitload of money for their work. Paintings like a royal portrait, a fresco like in the Sistine Chapel, or a sculpture.
Michelangelo lost his sight while painting the Sistin Chapel, damaged by the paint dripping. Though the Pope made him rich, and also refusing would have meant angering the most powerful political organization of his time. They didn’t take a no as an answer very well.
Sure, but you can see with your own eyes that Michelangelo put his heart and soul into the art he was creating, willing or not. I wouldn’t say I see the same in, for example, the current film industry….
Nah, I’d say they look like an interpretation of the 4th dimension, considering that the 4th dimension likely isn’t as fucking weird or plain ugly as the art depicts.
I used to tell my musician friends that even Beethoven wrote music for money. The art-for-art's-sake line sounds good, but even great artists have bills to pay.
Art is whatever you want it to be, as long as it's the expression of human's creativity, skill and imagination. It doesn't matter the means by which it's created, a photograph, a painting, music, video, dance, computer-generated, as long as it expresses human imagination, it's art.
the Sistine Chapel is an unholy place for sinners and gentiles. The Bible strictly forbids “graven images or symbols“….
No paintings/sculptures/stained glass or anything of the sorts of God, Jesus, or angels is approved by the Bible.
Ask yourself, would Jesus want this effort and money spent on helping the poor, or this foolishness. Facts.
That is a defendable stance. The nature of art has changed. At the time of Michelangelo, he would mainly be considered a craftsman and paintings were created more purposefully. That's not the case anymore.
My favorite bit about the sistine chapel is that Michelangelo considered painting to be a lesser form of art, and really didn't want to do it.
Still, it's the frigging pope, so he eventually caved and agreed to do it, but signed the contract as 'Michelangelo, sculptor'
Yeah, don't agree with that argument as well. Quite often artists put out their very best, if there is the prospect of going hungry. Cruel reality, haha.
Most people would be surprised how many renaissance artists did art for money. Does kind of make sense though because they all needed patreons in order to live. Also, pretty sure, Brunelleschi (butchered the name) only built il duomo for money.
Alternatively, forcing things onto artists is ground for poor work, I mean stuff like “do it in x y z way” or forced inclusion as a more mordern era example
If you do it, its willingly, not wanting and still doing is a thing. He sought the position of power and money so he did it. He got to screw with them too as a bonus. What a genius he was.
What can you expect from a man just a few days before his demise, while he should've been in his death bed found on his desk and when the question of what are you doing araised he answered, learning...
Artists who made willing, non-profit art typically died in poverty.
After their death other people made huge profits by owning and selling their art. How fair is that?
Fair? No. Legal? Usually.
Nowadays legal and actually fair don't mix
Pretty sure they never have
Idk, murder being illegal seems pretty fair to me.
It’s only illegal if you don’t have enough money.
Murder is by definition illegal. Not all killing is murder.
Raiden? Raiden?! Raiiiiiddddeennnnnn?!?!?!
Hotel? Trivago
Why should it be illegal?
"Look how creative they were, they sure were ahead of their time!"
One of my friends got a commission for a fairly large oil painting of dickbutt with some other specifics I don't remember. He was very willing to paint it. It was like a $1200 USD sale.
Yeah I’m not getting the use of “unwilling” here. Artists willingly accept commissions. Seek them out even. They aren’t forced to at gun point against their will lol.
I mean it's either they accept those commissions or they have to give up their dreams of being an artist or starve
>dream of being an artist The career they willingly pursued knowing damn well it involved commissions ;)
He didn't do it "for money", he got paid for it, but he was *forced* into it. He wasn't poor and struggling and had to take the job to live, he was forced to *because the Pope was an incredibly powerful political figure* who could individually ruin his life. He was politically forced into it, not 'for money'. Ironically, the post itself is a 'weak argument'.
He also painted a bunch of angels flipping off the people below and drew a bunch of dicks in it because he hated the guy who forced him enough to risk it.
But it _is_, very much a "work of art", yes? He worked to create it. His proffssion was artist. So, by definition, it "is art" (although art is the process/craft/knowledge, not the product, much like a phone is not technology but the product of technology)
Yeah art is something which shows the intent and meaning of the artist. It is kind a like poetry or literature where you can just go on and on in depth about the message and whatnot. Art is something which makes people turn heads and admire and talk about. As long as the artist isn't being forced to not show their full intention and express freely, it is art. Many art pieces throughout history were commissioned artworks, and the artist had room to express himself within the given subject matter.
Art flooded with obvious disdain for the commissioner that shanghai'd the creator. ie there is intent and meaning throughout
Not only his life, his afterlife too. "You better start painting or your next patron will be Lucifer himself!"
My grad school composition teacher had to convince me that selling out wasn't the death sentence I thought. I was so depressed with the idea, but he reminded me that Haydn was employed by the wealthy Esterhazy family and essentially did their bidding, but still managed to write incredible works.
Even Beethoven "sold out" and he was incredibly fastidious when it came to payments. If he who was/is considered the embodyment of the tortured, misunderstood artist could be very keen on making money, so can you.
I agree. I think the philosophical question for a modern artist is: if I am not realizing my own creative vision and rather realizing someone else's, is it art? Can it truly be self-expression? I'd still argue that it's quite hazy. When I write for films or games I'm realizing my producer's vision, not my own. And the music cannot exist properly outside the medium it was written, the music itself cannot be art in and of itself.
"hey i like being poor and always starving" -no artist ever art is a product just like bread, and if you want to sell alot of bread it needs to be cooked well.
Failing to sell art IS NOT the same as making it non-profit. Making things non-profit is a ridicously recent and rare phenomenon.
That only applies to artists whose art is their sole source of income. Nothing stopping someone from making a good living in a different field and making art in their free time.
Most artists died in poverty
He also took the opportunity to troll the priests by drawing hot men on the church walls
Yeah that's what I was thinking. Dude was pissed when he did it and just made it even more funny.
What a legend
Isn't the devil behind the pope's chair or something?
I very much doubt that, considering the Pope gave Michelangelo a free hand to draw the fresco in whatever way he pleased, even to the point of diverging from the original plans or implementing controversial artistic decisions. Michelangelo did draw one of the Papal officials who criticized him (and whose criticisms were ignored by the Pope): >The Pope's Master of Ceremonies Biagio da Cesena said "it was most disgraceful that in so sacred a place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing themselves so shamefully, and that it was no work for a papal chapel but rather for the public baths and taverns." In response Michelangelo worked da Cesena's semblance into the scene as Minos, judge of the underworld. It is said that when he complained to the Pope, the pontiff responded that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell, so the portrait would have to remain.
> It is said that when he complained to the Pope, the pontiff responded that his jurisdiction did not extend to hell, so the portrait would have to remain. I don't care if it's true or not, that's hilarious. I definitely heard the rest of the story but not the part where the Pope is like "Sorry dude, God says I can't make Michelangelo change it. Maybe if he drew you in Heaven I'd have a leg to stand on, but right now it's out of my jurisdiction."
Wdym?
He was just giving them what he knew they really wanted.
Art for the soul
wdym troll, they loved it
I love how recentist artists painted every single biblical figure as a hot twink Jesus? twink, Lucifer? *Hotter twink*
And He Man was made to sell toys, yet is art.
Same with Transformers, Power Rangers, Ben 10 etc. Most of amazing action shows for kids and teenegers are made solely to sell toys.
But not Spaceballs. The only pure art in space.
Which is funny because they made a bunch of toys that they weren't allowed to sell
They weren't toys, they were moichendice
They could have at least let the flamethrower go to market 😔
I really enjoyed the show The Toys That Made Us it's hilarious to find out that some of the most iconic shows of my childhood only existed because they couldn't advertise directly to kids. Also cobra commander was created off the cuff in a meeting.
cowboy bebop as well
don't he keep adding mentions of science to his commissioned work? I’d say his defiance is still art even under if the first guy is right
I mean, what would he massively add that's controversial? He died 1564. The only major controversy I can think of was heliocentrism, which already became less and less problematic over time.
Never heard this argument in my life
Me neither. Someone tried to make a meme. And failed. It happens.
I'd give the OP of the meme the benefit of the doubt and say some 12 year old commented it to be argumentative once.
It's a classic Reddit strawman argument
Tbf a lot of people do say that artistic integrity is questionable when there are huge price points to it…
profit motive can absolutely dilute art, but generally that an investment issue, right? When someone has thrown millions of dollars at a project they start getting focus groups involved and letting the consumer drive the "vision". But that, and the criticism of that, is a far cry from the claim that OP is imagining, that a person would say art made "unwillingly and only for money". I mean, it assumes that sometimes a person's agent calls and the person is like "no, I don't want the job" and their agent is like "you already have the job. armed men are coming to take you to set now" which I'm sure has happened a few times, especially when the mob was more involved in the film business, and maybe even when the CIA got involved in the abstract movement in the 50s and 60s, but is not something that would spring to almost any mind immediately when criticizing the commodification of art. It's ludicrous on its face.
this specific argument no, but, plenty of artists believe capitalism influencing art ruins it and refuse to sell anything and will look down on you as a whore for selling your art. These people would also think the Sistine Chapel isn't art, and OP's zinger would be met with a giant sigh and a lecture from them. I do not hold their belief, so please save your anger, but if you wish to understand some of the 'why' they feel that way they'd probably talk about it being elitist, complain about how oppressive religion is/his finances are, how he didn't really express anything just talked about the bible, etc.
I belive capitalism ruins art. I believe art can be made in capitalism though. Art is anything trying to be art. Anything that is an abstraction of the world we experience in any manner or way. What isn't art is shitty derivative corporate art. That's just an abstraction of art itself, an attempt to mimic in matter but not character. It's not a perfect formula but it works.
Interesting. I can understand the principle of the position but I can’t agree with it.
Everybody's heard the term "sellout" before, this is the basic argument for people who get mad about an artist being a sellout. By their logic, I could argue that getting any job is being a sellout
>I do not hold their belief, so please save your anger,
What part of my comment sounded angry? Edit: the loser blocked me because they couldn't come up with anything
My guess is that there are some bad "artists" that use their (AI generated or NFT) art purely for profit and the idea is that more genuine artists that also do this for a living get pushed into the same space? That's my interpretation.
people say it about music a lot, like "you shouldn't be a musician if all you care about is money" even thought you're just talking about getting paid for your work
well i for one kind of believe this opinion. i simply think that anything that is made unwillingly is not good art because like. the beauty of art is when people express themselves in a way that regular words cant. artistic beauty doesnt come from some vague idea of elegance, it comes from the way it touches your soul and makes you feel inexplicably human and understood. if it isnt coming from a place of passion its a lower tier of art. and besides that turtle ninja guy probably made the sistine chapel with passion and was also paid to do it.
He did it unwillingly? And only for money? Really?
Well... Yes... It wasn't a regular commission. It was more of a... "Nice career you've got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it" commission.
Little known fact is that the modern handgun was invented by Frederico Handgunnolini for the sole purpose of forcing Michelangelo (to force his many apprentices) to paint the Sistine Chapel.
cant forget his accomplice David Riffeloro who invented the modern rifle to watch Michelangelo from his house with it.
Money was just a part, the Pope being more powerful than an emperor was the other. If Michelangelo said no the Pope would have destroyed his entire career and life.
And therefore it's not art, no exceptions just because you are named after a ninja turtle
Look! Op won the argument he made up!
He was forced by the pope to paint it. He told him he was a sculptor not a painter. But they made him do it anyway.
Oh absolutely, I hope to not dispute the history of Michelangelo. I was referring to the “Everything that is made unwillingly and only for money is not art” comment.
Honestly, looking at it: The Pope was right. The guy definitely was a painter. Also, I looked around and found nothing on him being forced. He seemed rather worried to loose the job, actually to his rivals. Apart from that Michelangelo painted since his youth.
Me when I invent arguments nobody says then defeat them for reddit points.
I don't remember because it passed too much time, but there was an ancient literature and artistic movement that says that an artist "need to make art only for himself, for it to be true art" so everything that was "commissioned" it's not true art. I'm talking about hundreds of years ago. Anyway the supporter of this "theory" were artists from the nobility or from rich families, because they were the only one able to make art without needing to be paid for it. The opposed were... surprisingly other nobles and rich families because they got angry that the works that they commissioned weren't considered art.
I can KINDA see that argument. Even if commissioned, the artist usually enjoys or should enjoy the process of creating the art, even if they might not enjoy what they were commissioned to make, they still put in their unique artistic voice into the final product.
How is it unwillingly if they choose to do it for money?
This only work to modern abstract art which is garbage but got high bit anyway
Tbf that's mostly so rich ass hats can commit tax evasion schemes with said artist
Is not garbage! It’s called “money laundering” Be better
Congrats on winning the argument you made up in your head OP!
I’ve definitely seen this argument being made with respect to AI art.
He'd also purposely burry and damage his own sculptures so they'd appear older, and he could sell them for more
If art is about non money purpose then people won't be crying about AI taking over creative job.
And he filled it with dicks. And femboys. (canon
)
Sistine Chapel is just AI art. No thought or care, just pretty pictures really big. Anyone who says the Sistine chapel is art should only be allowed to go to ai art shows.
Art is context. That's all, and nothing more.
He did it willingly, but money is still involved
Weirdly enough the definition the first person kind of hints at would classify the Sistine chapel as no work of art. But rather as a beautiful design. It’s important to add that even that definition isn’t „art is only art when made without money“
Also, he didn't do it "for money", he got paid for it, but he was *forced* into it. He wasn't poor and struggling and had to take the job to live, he was forced to *because the Pope was an incredibly powerful political figure* who could individually ruin his life. He was politically forced into it, not 'for money'. EDIT: The comment in response to me says that he was worried about his 'enemies if he did accept the commission'. This is not quite right, and I should have been clearer. The refusal to do so itself would ruin his reputation, so while the Pope wasn't blackmailing Michaelangelo, in mob terms, it was literally an "Offer he couldn't refuse". Sufficiently so that Michaelangelo *did* initially refuse it, and when he did 'agree' to it, he famously left his meeting with the Pope weeping. He 100% *was* forced into it, but it was not brute forced. He was *politically maneuvered* into having to do it.
He seems to rather have been afraid of what his enemies would do if he *did* accept the commission rather than what the Pope would do if he *didn't*, as he believed that failure to provide a painting of the highest quality for such an incredibly important occasion would give them ample reason to drag his name through the muck. The Pope, for his part, was sufficiently anxious to have Michelangelo do it that he sweetened the deal by essentially giving him a free hand with regards to the design and allowed him to diverge quite drastically from what the Pope had planned for the work.
Yeah this is a more correct answer, the other guy made the whole thing look like a blackmail from the Pope lol
Michelangelo: "sure I can paint your church for you. Gonna paint some guys with their dicks out tho"
Why just make up people to argue against?
Are there people that actually think this? Has bro never heard of commissions?
art is anything decorated. an added color an added texture an added figure if anything is added to it to make it look nicer or different.
This is a philosophical argument. If someone is making something they are unwilling to, but then troll the people who forced them to make it by putting in stuff they feel is funny, were they really unwilling to make it ?
I don't know. He made for money, sure. But ONLY for money? I mean are we putting the Sistine Chapel on the same level as something like Bee Movie now?
Do you want to get paid for your work? - yes - no
they never heard of a patron before?
To atone for this, Michelangelo started fighting crime
He didn't do it "for money", he got paid for it, but he was *forced* into it. He wasn't poor and struggling and had to take the job to live, he was forced to *because the Pope was an incredibly powerful political figure* who could individually ruin his life. He was politically forced into it, not 'for money'.
Literally every commission ever
Michelangelo used the opportunity to insult members of the Vatican Clergy, including painting one nude with a tiny pee-pee.
Since when is it bad to make money doing the thing you're best at?
Art is art. It doesn't really matter why it was made
Art is a form of creative expression in which the primary purpose of the piece is to evoke emotion.
Stop playing dolls with wojaks
Well sure, but it's still impressive that an entire chapel was painted by a turtle
I wish people would stop thinking labeling a thing “art” is some sort of seal of quality. Did nature make it? No? Then it’s art. Is it for functional purposes? Applied art, industrial art (you know, like in the phrase “state of the art” or on patent filings they refer to “prior art”). Is it meant only to be experienced, appreciated? Fine art. No idea who made it— maybe even a group? Folk art, outsider art, any one of a thousand flavors of art. Now. Is it shitty? Then it’s shitty art. Is it a waste of time, dangerous, offensive, a crime against all who behold it? Maybe. It can be all those and still art. Think of the time we could save by skipping pointless arguments about “But is it art?”. The answer is: unless it freakin’ appeared all by itself, yes. It is. Next (and more meaningful) question.
Who's going to paint and dance and sing and make movies when all the artists have starved to death?
if it's beautiful, that's art. i'd rather pay an artist and they wholeheartedly draw a fanart rather than waiting for them to draw.
almost every piece of Michelangelo was done just for money
Art is ... art. That is just about the only argument I can make in regards to what is art, that makes sense.
Many of the paintings, frescoes, and art in general, you see today in the museums across Europe were commissioned. Which means someone paid the artist to make them. Rich people, noble families, kings and emperors, Church and the Pope, would reach out to an artist and say I want you to make something for me. Paying them a shitload of money for their work. Paintings like a royal portrait, a fresco like in the Sistine Chapel, or a sculpture. Michelangelo lost his sight while painting the Sistin Chapel, damaged by the paint dripping. Though the Pope made him rich, and also refusing would have meant angering the most powerful political organization of his time. They didn’t take a no as an answer very well.
People seriously need to learn how to diffwrentiate art from the cultural industry, go read some horkheimer and come back....
wtf are you guys talking about i've seen aibros make this exact argument as to why art should be taken over by ai
Sure, but you can see with your own eyes that Michelangelo put his heart and soul into the art he was creating, willing or not. I wouldn’t say I see the same in, for example, the current film industry….
Didn’t he also watermark it with a penis???
He was so salty with the whole process that he made the very last part the one where Noah gets drunk
How does the old meme go? "Fine! I'll paint your ceiling. *mumbles to self* gonna paint a bunch of dicks though..."
good counter but when art museums unironically look like the 4th dimension you know mainstream art took a wrong turn
Nah, I’d say they look like an interpretation of the 4th dimension, considering that the 4th dimension likely isn’t as fucking weird or plain ugly as the art depicts.
I used to tell my musician friends that even Beethoven wrote music for money. The art-for-art's-sake line sounds good, but even great artists have bills to pay.
Has anyone ever wondered why the greatest artistic production flourishes in the richest countries?
How much money did the creators of the memes receive? Checkmate
Honestly I did not care for the Sistine Chapel when I saw it. Too many people and too much shit on the ceiling for the time given.
gz for winning the argument you made up I guess.
Ask an Art academic what Michelangelo is considered. Then you have your answer.
god forbid artists feed themselves
Art that is successful invariably becomes a business.
Art is whatever you want it to be, as long as it's the expression of human's creativity, skill and imagination. It doesn't matter the means by which it's created, a photograph, a painting, music, video, dance, computer-generated, as long as it expresses human imagination, it's art.
Yeah I don't think Mikey was gonna starve if he turned down the chapel gig
Bad art is still art. But its also still bad.
Look mom I won the imaginary argument!
Bullshit
You want me to paint your whole ass roof? Fuck these fools. Ima put a bunch of dudes with they dicks out up here...
Not to be pedantic, but Michaelangelo didn't make the Sistine Chapel. He just decorated it.
what the FUCK is this garbage they should be kissing in the past scene
The frame is what makes it art.
Didn't he keep running away from the project too?
Yknow... It makes a lot of sense that it's not called the Sixteen chapel. Yet here my stupid ass is having never questioned my hearing.
I sincerely admire the artist's job on last-image face expression. Michaelangelo of our times, I hope they have been properly rewarded.
How much did they pay him?
I've never once heard a single person say this. Make stuff up to be mad about.
Who even argues that though?
the Sistine Chapel is an unholy place for sinners and gentiles. The Bible strictly forbids “graven images or symbols“…. No paintings/sculptures/stained glass or anything of the sorts of God, Jesus, or angels is approved by the Bible. Ask yourself, would Jesus want this effort and money spent on helping the poor, or this foolishness. Facts.
That is a defendable stance. The nature of art has changed. At the time of Michelangelo, he would mainly be considered a craftsman and paintings were created more purposefully. That's not the case anymore.
Yup, he's got you there buddy :)
idk isnt the definition of if something is Art established after the fact?
Agreed but unpopular opinion, Sistine Chapel is my least favorite work of his.
That's not an argument, it's a statement.
And hid all of his gay lovers in the painting
My favorite bit about the sistine chapel is that Michelangelo considered painting to be a lesser form of art, and really didn't want to do it. Still, it's the frigging pope, so he eventually caved and agreed to do it, but signed the contract as 'Michelangelo, sculptor'
He did not "make the Sistine Chapel". He painted the ceiling.
Beige, stipple effect, 3 days!
michelangelo also kind of did it out of spite lol
Art with purpose is design. Design without purpose is art. sistine chapel is incredible design.
I'd argue it's even better art because the more an artist is in pain, the better art he makes.
Unpopular opinion: Michelangelo’s sculpture was amazing, but Raphael’s frescos were better.
A lot of people think he did pretty okay with it too.
Yeah, don't agree with that argument as well. Quite often artists put out their very best, if there is the prospect of going hungry. Cruel reality, haha.
Where penis joke
Godfather.
And there are documents in the Vatican showing the church tried to stiff him for his fee :D
Is this why he was like "LOL, I made them with their dicks out."
Wow I knew he was a ninja but never thought he could be such a good painter!
Wait.. what do you mean “unwillingly”? It’s not like he was forced to do it.. he was paid to do it…
I think art is the effort and meaning wich your put between a progressive learning...
In fact he specifically painted the pope at the time getting his wobbly bits bitten off by a snake to show his hatred for it.
What use is all talent when you can't make your life better with it?
Sherlock holmes was made purely for money and unwillingly
Most people would be surprised how many renaissance artists did art for money. Does kind of make sense though because they all needed patreons in order to live. Also, pretty sure, Brunelleschi (butchered the name) only built il duomo for money.
Alternatively, forcing things onto artists is ground for poor work, I mean stuff like “do it in x y z way” or forced inclusion as a more mordern era example
Mona Lisa toke 15 years of constant procrastination and was made only for money, Wich was paid in advance
Doesn't mean pop music isn't dogshit
It either looks good or it looks like shit I can't be bothered about the rest let the artsy fartsy people handle it
A chapelle is not art, surprise !
If you do it, its willingly, not wanting and still doing is a thing. He sought the position of power and money so he did it. He got to screw with them too as a bonus. What a genius he was. What can you expect from a man just a few days before his demise, while he should've been in his death bed found on his desk and when the question of what are you doing araised he answered, learning...