I'm not talking fine art particularly.
Conversation
If you're creating your own definition of art that doesn't fit into the fine arts artworld (or literature world, which is now overlaps a lot with the artworld), you're an "outsider artist" and while you might think of yourself as an artist and may have success, ...
1
You will likely not have a significant effect on art during your lifetime. Obviously this is just my understanding of how these things work
1
I'm 100% in support of holding the belief that one is an artist btw, just pointing out some potential frustrations that might occur when trying to be an artist publically
1
I actually think of MFA types as bureaucrats who might sometimes rise to artist despite their formal insider status rather than because of it
1
1
That's what I thought too, but I have been researching the art world intensely (as my day job for a startup) and have had a lot of trouble finding successful artists (as recognized by the art world) who don't have a prestigious art school
2
I get that. I just don't think recognition by the art world is what makes someone an artist. And there's plenty of ways to make money while feeding artistic aspirations that don't involve relying on validation from that world so that correlation is also kinda spurious.
1
1
As far as I can tell, trying to successfully do art without an arts education and validation from the art world is like trying to start a tech business without an eng/biz education and no contact with the world of angels / VC
1
1
2
You might pull it off, but you'll starve first, socially or literally
1
1
Of course, I already think that Ribbonfarm etc is a huge artistic achievement. I'm just trying to illustrate the status quo
1
It is certainly a satisfying thing to have grown, and it is certainly...something, but it doesn’t fit my own definition of art. I do like some institutional contemporary art. I just think the more interesting stuff is happening within commercial work.

