All art must be entertaining and sell well

>All art must be entertaining and sell well
Where does this mindset come from?

Attached: 1650511860950.jpg (640x640, 108.4K)

Some people lack so much in imagination that they see everything as business and engineering (things that need to be "efficient" to achieve some money-making goal)

Just say soulless. It's faster.

It's the result of capitalism

>Where does this mindset come from?
When such a brend enters the stock exchange then shareholders decide what they do and only care about money.

Attached: 1656962798149.jpg (672x836, 80.38K)

This

no its not people with money in the past spent it lavishly on themselves to the point art wasnt anything other than a paid ticket for an egotrip

well it doesn't have to be entertaining in a carefree fun way but it has to provide something to the consumer, whether its something to think about or something new that you didn't know. but in al cases it has to sell well because how will the artist make more if he can't fucking eat?

to add to that if anything capitalism 'freed' art and brought it down from the elites to the common man, by making it cheaper, distributable and easier to manufacture and opening it to a massive market so there is something for anyone instead of just portraits for aristocratic twats and pussies
any teen can now draw and design online for free, basic tools and materials for art cost barely nothing due to capitalism in nature creating wealth, all contributed to the freedom of art

Bump

Oddly enough, people who want a communist revolution only ever watch Disney movies.

...

If it's not entertaining in some way, then it's literally garbage though.

This guy thinks art is a picture
>Bump

You can make a boring piece of crap and it is still art, but if you want to make a profit you have to at least rebrand it so it seems exciting.

Applies to some art forms, maybe. I'm pretty sure basic painting supplies weren't especially difficult to come by, even before capitalism. Fucking cavemen painted, how high could the barrier of entry have possibly been?

Meanwhile, film is a medium that practically needs some funding. Sure, with enough talent, a camera and some willing collaborators you will be able to make a movie, maybe even a good one, but working with no funding or only the funding you can provide from your 9 - 5 job, you'll be at the end of your rope eventually.

Attached: ab5361a6b981b5f16a3767bf69966459.jpg (552x414, 36.45K)

lol no art wasn't always associated with money, art was used as symbolism and creating a deeper connection with the people throug hthe church, it wasn't until later when greedy capitalists with huge egos wanted paintings of themselves and their mansions

absolute historylet

absolute mong

>all art must be entertaining
That comes from the general population who only consoom art that is entertaining. They’re too stupid to appreciate art for what it is, and they can only understand when it’s entertaining.

>all are must well well
That comes from brainwashing of the general population. The general population is desperate to fit in and conform with everyone else. Despite what people say they don’t really want to be different or stand out. As a result, their interests lie with everyone else’s and they typically only consoom stuff that is popular. Therefore if it doesn’t sell well and it’s not popular and everybody else doesn’t like it it’s bad. This mindset is really propagated by the consoomers corporate overlords who want to milk the general population for every cent they can.

yep because the general population dont have the courage to think for it self and step out of line, yet at the same time they wish they had what it take to be an artists and make art, everybody wants to be a famous artist but they fail to realize that making art and being an artists is not always that great actually most of the time is full of pain and rejection, mental health issues and disappointment, they dont want all that no,

People want all the good stuff with being an artist but non of the bad stuff....