> I’ll just assume you’re offended because you’re old.
I very strongly suspect I'm younger than you. And I've no personal interest in artistic pursuits, to be explicit.
The only reason I took offence was that you were, in short, acting offensively. Even shorter - you were an asshole.
In the longer - you were telling people who wanted to pursue art that they were presumptuous for daring to do so because they weren't the right age in your opinion. That far exceeds presumption and veers directly into arrogance, as I mentioned earlier.
> Prove yourself or deal with mediocrity
We are nearly all, in the scheme of things, mediocre. That's just how normal distributions work.
But, you don't have to shit in someone else's Weetbix just because you're feeling your age and Scrooge's "Bah humbug" makes more sense than ever.
Just stick to yelling at those damn kids to get off your damn lawn.
“It’s what I’ve done!”
This seems an unusual statement. I consume a lot more art in my 40s than I did in my 20s for example.
As a counter-example, Stan Lee only began drawing superheros when he was 43. Hard to argue his work isn't consumed by young people.
And of course Paul Cézanne only got his first exhibition when hr was 56.
What you say can happen, but it must not happen. I have seen 70 year old artists doing more modern and interesting works than graduates. And this is not rare, which you would definitly agree to if you are an avid visitor of art exhibitions.
Also modern or high art is something different to animation which our poster here wants to go for. I don't see why age would matter there — and even if it would OP is 20. We have many people who start to study art at that age. The average age might be 19 to 20.
It is true, that not everybody is made to transition into art, especially if they did not do any art their whole life, but that has nothing to do with the Zeitgeist and everything to do with the time it takes to develope the eyes needed to see what needs to be seen.
Michelangelo and Carravagio were contract artists and so were most of the others who are considered great artists. Of course, their audience wasn't the plebs.
And what is considered true art today is nothing but a rigged money game of the big art houses and galleries.
Point is art itself
That i enjoy it.
Some people enjoy doing art.
I have to disagree with every clause in this statement. First, you don't have to be "old" to become "retired"; people can take extended sabbaticals away from the money race at any time in their adult lives to pursue their current passions - if only for a short while. If/when the money/support runs out, "un-retire" and prepare for the next "retirement". Second, being part of the "cultural zeitgeist" has nothing whatsoever to do with artistic ability - unless you're more interested in artistic fame/fortune than producing art that realises your vision. Third, you do not need to be young to "consume art" - btw that is a truly awful phrase that grates against every fibre of my alleged soul. I for one didn't suddenly stop appreciating the creativity of my fellow humans on my 30th birthday.
I'm sorry this comment has turned out to be so negative, but art is, for me, not a job description; it is a passion, an addiction from which I never want to be cured.
Why do you think "people who really consume art" are young? This seems completely false to me.
That's fine. I would never do art for someone else anyway. It's not that it's a selfish thing, I don't do art to amuse myself, but rather I do art to express a thing I need to express (for some reason). That is not dictated by the whims of others.