That's not my definition of art. That's your take; and you're projecting your (mid-brow) sensibilities onto me.
I don't define art. It's a sense, not a logical box you can put things in.
Receiving money for your art is one thing; going out of your way to use it as a means of living is another. The work immediately becomes tainted, and is no longer art.
It could be an amazing piece, but if your line of work is receiving money for what you create, you're an artisan, not an artist.
A character drawn for an RPG is not art. It is not a work of art. It is a graphic designed for utility. That is all it will ever be.
The sublime nature of art is there because it transcends everyday vulgarity. One transcends mere personage and becomes an artist by being in the world, but not of it.
The more money an artisan makes, the more his craft suffers. He almost always improves his technical ability through this process (otherwise, he would not make money), but loses his soul, and will never be an artist. He does not have the fiber in his heart that allows one to suffer through all manner of anguish, and material poverty, to dedicate oneself towards something above oneself; so he settles for being an artisan.
I can understand not being educated on these matters. But the amount of misplaced confidence you carry, writing on things you know nothing about is detestable.
If your inquiries into the nature of humanity and what it means to be are genuine (and not mis-attributed self-importance), my recommendation is to read and listen more, and talk less.
Matthew B. Crawford's works are a decent bridge into all that, for the modern middle crust who feels something stirring in his soul, and needs a direction.
If you feel like your assessment of your own abilities is honest, then I would completely skip anything modern, and begin with Burke's A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful. I will even buy you an unabridged copy and have it shipped to you, if you're a starving artist that cannot afford it (and my respect for you would increase, all the same).
I don't define art. It's a sense, not a logical box you can put things in.
Receiving money for your art is one thing; going out of your way to use it as a means of living is another. The work immediately becomes tainted, and is no longer art.
It could be an amazing piece, but if your line of work is receiving money for what you create, you're an artisan, not an artist.
A character drawn for an RPG is not art. It is not a work of art. It is a graphic designed for utility. That is all it will ever be.
The sublime nature of art is there because it transcends everyday vulgarity. One transcends mere personage and becomes an artist by being in the world, but not of it.
The more money an artisan makes, the more his craft suffers. He almost always improves his technical ability through this process (otherwise, he would not make money), but loses his soul, and will never be an artist. He does not have the fiber in his heart that allows one to suffer through all manner of anguish, and material poverty, to dedicate oneself towards something above oneself; so he settles for being an artisan.
I can understand not being educated on these matters. But the amount of misplaced confidence you carry, writing on things you know nothing about is detestable.
If your inquiries into the nature of humanity and what it means to be are genuine (and not mis-attributed self-importance), my recommendation is to read and listen more, and talk less.
Matthew B. Crawford's works are a decent bridge into all that, for the modern middle crust who feels something stirring in his soul, and needs a direction.
If you feel like your assessment of your own abilities is honest, then I would completely skip anything modern, and begin with Burke's A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful. I will even buy you an unabridged copy and have it shipped to you, if you're a starving artist that cannot afford it (and my respect for you would increase, all the same).