Has this person not actually been on the Internet?<p>There is a huge, sprawling market of art online. And I don't mean stuff with the cultural approval of the gallery system. I mean, say, people making a living by drawing mind-control commissions on Deviantart. Paying the bills by cranking out custom art of folk's furry characters on Furaffinity. Selling commissions of weird stuff via Tumblr. Folks doing web comics and selling ads/books/t-shirts. Custom clothes/jewelry/chainmail/whatever on Etsy. Patreon is helping too - lotsa people are starting to say "hey I just wanna draw some COOL STUFF and if you like my themes then help support me doing it" in various ways on that site.<p>This economy has been booming ever since Paypal made it easy to give someone money online.<p>None of it is "Fine Art". No small amount of it is pornography. It is not glamorous. It is not pretentious. A hell of a lot of it is amateurs still learning. But there is a lot of it, and some of it is <i>amazing</i>.<p>Seriously: I have a friend who put his wife through nursing school, and is still helping to support her and their child, by drawing outrageous furry latex bondage commissions.
> Pre-20th century, the music world in the West resembled the art world today. If you listened to professional music, were informed about the genre and attended performances, you were part of an elite class.<p>Bullshit. There were massive outdoor concerts for public with no charge. Every tiny village had church with some sort of musical instruments. My ancestors (rural farmers) had (and still have) 300 years old music band...<p>> Pessimists would say that fundamentally there is a finite universe of people interested in art, or that you must experience art in person to acquire a passion for it.<p>Another bullshit. There is a huge number of street artists, from juggler to spray painters. Every kid wants to go to circus to see acrobats. And finally there is infinitive stream of movies, ads and others forms of art.
Art already is already as ubiquitous as music. I would even say art became ubiquitous before music. The very first photographs and easily reproduced paintings prove this. Kids these days cover their walls in prints and posters. Your computer has a rolling background of various art or photography of your choosing. The shirt you're wearing probably has a logo or a decal or maybe even a full piece of artwork on it.<p>I have had days where I don't encounter music. Not encountering art? I pretty much have to go out into the middle of the woods or spend all day at the office off the internet.<p>Most people don't spend thousands of dollars on music per year. They won't spend that kind of money on art either. But they're already consuming art - tons of it.
So, sure, lots of flawed examples/reasoning here, but let's look at the overall premise: can art become further democratized, accessible, expansive in media and impactful?<p>First off, it's a nice idea. The world can use more pleasant, hopeful, upbeat thinking in my mind.<p>Second, on the substantive points, that changes in technology will drive changes in what is considered "art" and who can access it, particularly from a market perspective: that's hard to dispute. This is a continuation of changes that have been evolving for 100 years, from the dadaists, through the invention of lithography, to warhol (or murakami today), and seem likely to continue.<p>So an easy article to pick apart, but hard to dispute the point that (i think) he's intending to make.
This is factually wrong. Historically, a huge swath of the population preformed music. And listening to professional musicians was about as 'elite' as going to the movies is today.
If, today, you want to be a visual artist analog of a pop musician, you can create comics, or perhaps grafiti. Or album covers, artwork on clothing, sporting equipment, motorbikes, and cars, etc. (Just shooting off the top of my head.)<p>This seems to strike at the fundamental premise of the article; pardon me if I'm wrong.