
There are too many mediocre artists - rglovejoy
https://quillette.com/2018/08/21/my-unpopular-opinion-theres-too-many-mediocre-artists/
======
squozzer
I found the article funny. My problem has to do with the concept of "mediocre"
\- which is an insulting way of saying "average". Though the writer also uses
the term "boring", which has a lot to do with individual taste.

For instance, imagine a field with only one practitioner. Is that person
mediocre or excellent? Both, really. I'll leave the proof as an exercise for
the reader.

------
CM30
Well, given that this article seems like more of a rant that meanders from
topic to topic in a somewhat related way, I may as well give feedback on each
point as it comes up:

1\. There are too many artists despite the limited market and many people's
lack of talent

True, and it's not just limited to art too. Sports has much the same issue
here; easy to get into, a dream career for millions (or billions) of people
and an opportunity that most won't be able to achieve simply because they're
not talented enough.

Journalism and media is another sort of example here, since it's got a very
large audience of wannabes, is filled with people who don't have the talent to
make it... and unlike sports and art pays like crap. This is especially true
when it comes to tech, gaming, sports or celebrity journalism.

2\. Schools pushing the 'everyone gets a prize' narrative was responsible for
this.

Not sure I'd agree with this one. I'd say it's much like it always was,
popular because:

A. It's trendy and you're 'cool' if you succeed B. In many of these fields,
the money for the very small percentage at the top is incredibly good C. Many
people enjoy these things (creating art, writing, playing sports) and wish
they were what they did in their main career D. For a growing percentage of
the population, this stuff is going to be their only practical chance of
making a decent living. Automation + globalisation and outsourcing + changing
company structures means that at some point, I suspect it'll be either 'get a
very specialist job with a high barrier to entry' or 'basically win the
lottery' if you want a middle to upper class income. E. People think the work
is easy F. It seemingly avoids many of the stresses of everyday life, like
commuting, open offices, customers/clients, etc

3\. Professional associations explain why some fields make more money

Kind of true, though as many Hacker News readers know, software engineers/web
developers/programmers make pretty good money too, and that has no barrier to
entry. Same with marketers to be honest.

4\. Identity politics is used as a marketing/branding strategy

Maybe? If so however, it's not a very good one. A quick look at the various TV
shows, films, comic books, games and other media trying to sell themselves on
'progressive' politics shows that the majority have bombed hard. By virtue of
simple demographics, a company or publishing house that does this is probably
on the road to irrelevance/bankruptcy.

Other than that, well it can seemingly be boiled down to 'people who spend
their life complaining about things on social media and hoping to become an
artist should probably get a normal job'. Which is a fair point I guess. Just
seems like one that's buried under a bunch of potentially decent but
disconnected other ones.

~~~
squozzer
Good points, I'll just add a pinch of comment.

1) Art criticism probably plays a role because it helps define art fashion -
e.g. when realistic painting gave way to abstract art, it opened the door to
people making millions painting triangles (after 37 years of study) and
squiggly lines.

2) G. Calling yourself an "artist" probably works as a pick-up line in more
bohemian parts of the West.

3) Supply and demand.

4) I think identity politics succeeds in helping artists and customers find
niches. So far it hasn't translated into huge successes in popular culture,
probably because marketers try to spin such things as originality. Han Solo is
a pansexual? Big deal, Captain Kirk slept with a green alien in 1967.

