A few hundred years ago, by contrast, artists tended to get into it via, essentially, apprenticeship to another artist, and attempt to get a patron that way. Some artists ended up being technically proficient, but stylistic innovation was very, very slow and minor by comparison to the late 19th century on.
You don't even need "talent" anymore. Music can be created by ear using drag-and-drop interfaces. Illustrator makes it dead simple to do vector art without any drawing ability. GTAV comes with an animation toolkit for making films.
Most people create art for fun or their own pleasure. Tiktok is full of "modern art" in the form of short videos.
I'd argue that that's still talent, if the product is any good. You don't need technical expertise, but you still need creativity.
She switched out of painting when the someone in class used pain straight from the tube (no mixing) and just made a vagina that was smoking a cigarette but then had some real good fluff backing it up.
She deeply respected the impressionists so it was rough for her. She's happy in her new medium tho.
source: sister with a masters in fine art from a very prestigious university.
Art is always about the message and the emotions it impresses on people, not raw technique. Or do you think that literature is the art of typesetting?
You're still talking about this smoking vagina, how many other pieces from this class do you mention in casual conversation? Clearly if it was meant to be a provoking piece, it worked to a certain extent.
I sincerely doubt if that's how it works even nowadays. You need to be discovered by a well-connected and well-heeled patron who thinks what you do can be marketed with just a few tweaks. Very seldom does the artist become the patron of their own work is my guess. Banksy might be one of the few exceptions that prove the rule.