it sounds better to call them beginner, intermediate and advanced.
This is also debatable as the true talents are fantastic at a young age, while others will never come close to anything.
Also who is going to decide what intermediate or advanced means? What is that level? These days even a splash of paint is called art, or a few wooden bars tied together (I have the proof for this), so ... it's a tricky matter to be honest.
I have no contact with art on a daily basis. More specifically, with painting. I wrote about levels because it is my personal form of evaluating someone else's work. I see, for example, that someone's work looks very good, but it still lacks something - and for me it's the level of intermediate craft. So my first post was perhaps too much of a subjective opinion representing my personal point of view.
What I have to agree with and regardless of whether it is painting, photography or music, someone who does not have innate talent will not reach this professional status. And it certainly won't come easily and naturally.
Exactly. Everything is subjective. I am only an admirer, I'm not an artist, but speaking to curators, I know quite a lot and it's impossible to draw lines. We all have out opinions and see things in a different way. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder and not without a reason. It's a very volatile world.
Look at the most famous paintings for example. A good part of them are ugly, yet those are the most expensive ones.
I thought to myself now something come on I don't know if it's the right comparison. Maybe with these paintings it is like with, for example, electronic equipment. you pay not for the beauty of the picture but for the reputation of the author? Just like we pay more for well-known brands of equipment than for their quality alone. Of course, not in every case, because for sure many of these works are actually beautiful.
You're not wrong there. Most of those buying famous paintings are doing so as store value, not because they like it. Plus it's a question of prestige. But this is also a double edged sword, because an artwork worth as much as it is offered for it. If you buy it for $20m and next year you can only get $15m or $10m for it, you're underwater big time. It's a game for the very upper class :)
I can’t imagine taking on that kind of risk — but at the same time, it’s hard to even picture it when you’re not operating within the financial range where such investment amounts are even conceivable.
Returning to art, I’d like to briefly refer to photography, which I engage with far more often than other artistic fields. I’ve been reflecting on how people generally perceive different types of photographs. The most popular images don’t always go hand in hand with high technical quality, attention to detail, or adherence to compositional principles. Thoughtfully conceived and carefully planned photographs often gain recognition mainly among those who truly understand photography, while for a broader audience, images that are simply “pretty and colorful” tend to resonate more.
Is painting similar in this respect? To reach a wider audience, does one need a high level of technical mastery, or is it enough to create something visually simple and easy to absorb? I’m not sure if I’m expressing this clearly, but it’s difficult for me to put it into better words.
The most popular images don’t always go hand in hand with high technical quality, attention to detail, or adherence to compositional principles. Thoughtfully conceived and carefully planned photographs often gain recognition mainly among those who truly understand photography, while for a broader audience, images that are simply “pretty and colorful” tend to resonate more.
This is also heavily subjective, what we call most popular. If you take the audience, regardless if we're talking about art or photography, only a thin segment has proper education in these fields, so the rest can be considered amateurs (or call them whatever you like), so obviously not having the knowledge, they judge everything in a different way, meaning each of them are looking for something they like, be it colors, items, light, or God knows what.
So I'd say in each field there are the trend setters, the so called elite (known and famous artists and critiques), who kind of decide what is "quality", then there's the rest, who may not understand anything, but they look up to the artists and their work, because they are told this is high quality, exceptional, by any standard, and are those who don't care at all. If they don't like what they see, they have the courage to "not like it".
This is how I see this world, in very simple terms. I hope you understand what I'm saying.
I understand you, and I actually agree with many of the things you’re saying. However, I’ve noticed certain trends—especially on social media—where more amateur works, art, and photography can become incredibly popular (and I’m using the number of likes as a measure of popularity here).
I also see that within the amateur community, it’s usually the more accessible, colorful, and often technically weaker pieces that gain the most recognition on social media. Meanwhile, the more refined and carefully crafted works often go underappreciated. I’m speaking specifically about the world of more amateur creators and artists.
I think we need to distinguish between social media posts and actual exhibitions. You can post whatever you want on social media, any kind of art, but to make it to a gallery, it's a different matter.