> if one of the things you are selling is likability and good vibes, cheering on this kind of vicious reaction every time you get a review you don’t like is probably not a sustainable career path.
This is completely false. I might even say that it is wishful thinking. Some kind of "long arc of history bends towards justice" make-believe.
The contrary is almost certainly true: picking fights with well-selected made up enemies is an effective way to promote a brand that is based on virtue. It transforms an inactive/passive audience into an active participant in a movement. I would bet many of the people attacking this art critic wrote their first comment in defense of this artist. He subtly said "I need your help" and his audience reacted.
The art critic noted the manufactured TikTok videos, obviously planned by a media savvy PR team. Perhaps he isn't cynical enough to believe it, but this sustained and coordinated attack against him may well have been planned and orchestrated.
> The contrary is almost certainly true: picking fights with well-selected made up enemies is an effective way to promote a brand that is based on virtue.
I concur. Anecdotally, I see lots of content from TikTok creators replying to negative comments. At first I wondered why they seemed to be only amplifying negative responses instead of their fans, and then it hit me - those were the videos that did well (i.e. those videos got the most likes, views, shares). Showcasing a "hater comment" turns on the video viewers' tribal instinct. We want to side with the creator, to show the hater their place.
If this is actually the first time he's been criticized, the critic may be correct. If he starts getting more criticism and always reacts like a drama queen who has been terribly wronged and behaves very unprofessionally, the people who were fans because he was "nice" may start disappearing.
And that could hurt his bottom line. People there for the drama may not be paying customers. They may essentially be internet trolls.
> And that could hurt his bottom line. People there for the drama may not be paying customers. They may essentially be internet trolls.
That's the magic of the "attention economy" - the people that get emotionally invested in the dramas surrounding you are better than "paying customers", because they check their brains out and switch to ingroup/outgroup mode - at which point you can sell them absolutely anything whatsoever. In contrast, paying customers are just annoying - they have opinions, and aren't going to give your person the time and sustained attention - the kind of following that both you and the platform you're on can effectively monetize through friction (i.e. continued ad exposure).
Right now this seems to be the generic recipe for printing money on social media:
1. Become an influencer and work at it until existing influencers treat you as one of their own;
2. Start engaging in the semi-regular, petty, totally not scripted fights with your fellow influencers;
3. Sign a deal for putting your name on some random bullshit commodity product, like idk. eyeliners or perfumes or makeup kits, and watch money roll in.
4. Optional: bonus points if you can turn that deal info a story of two influencers having a falling out over who gets paid for the bullshit product from point 3. You can milk that kind of thing for years, all the while selling your audience the same or different flavor of bullshit with your name on it.
Similar things happen between countries during wars. The only difference is that people die horribly instead of just sending mean messages to each other.
> In fact, the only way I can understand Rodriguez’s incredibly thin-skinned reaction to my article is that he has managed to rise to this status of apex visibility without any kind of critical writing about him at all.
edit: oops I see in your other comment you quoted that part!
What's more amazing to me is that the artist doesn't even seem to understand what a critic _does_ - like what is the critic doing? He's not "gatekeeping" (what gate? the artist is famous, getting rich, and has a gallery show!) and not jealous or a 'hater'.
Like I understand that artists traditionally dislike critics, for obvious reasons, but usually they know the purpose of criticism. As the author says he is trying to both put the art in context of other art and to consider how social media figures into the art.
I agree. And I think the artist knows this, as he ended the campaign against the critic with a “I’ll teach you a lesson that love is better than hate” or something and asking his followers to follow the critic.
You forgot the second part of that post: "I think that's what he wants but doesn't know how to go about it". Which is, to me, clearly another jab at the critic, as if Ben is just trying get followers.
> Some kind of "long arc of history bends towards justice" make-believe.
I find it fascinating that you can look at the long arc of the moral universe and see it any other way. The only reason I can think of is that you’re staring at just the last few decades trying to discern a pattern, or even looking for the bend itself in the present. But if you take a step back and look at all of human history (and what we know about pre-history), how can you see it any other way?
Sure, if you look at the narrativized version of European human history the way we first conceived of it in the early Renaissance period, there's no other way to see it. It's called living at "the imperial core" for a reason.
World history just tends to be a bit more complicated than that and looking at history as a combination of "overcoming monarchy", "increased technical complexity" and "line goes up" might leave you with a limited view feeding into your pre-existing biases.
I believe that long-arc moral ideas are debatable when applied to history. I personally don't believe it and unless we want to get into some deep discussion on history, politics and metaphysics we are unlikely to get anywhere. But I respect the position when applied in a correct context.
However, it is another thing to apply a supposed multi-generational trend, one that requires us to "step back" as you say, to the tactics of an individual playing the social media game. It's like the difference between the tide and an individual wave in the middle of the ocean.
> And one easily disproven by the following of one Donald T.
That is not so. Donald Trump followers are not a static set. DT does lose and gain followers.
What might be true that some persona, no matter how disagreeable, will always have some followers.
Convicted criminals get love letters from strange women and all that.
If this artist continues in that way, most of his followers will come to consist only of people who are attracted by his obnoxious personality, without any connection to the works he creates. In the eyes of the world at large, he will just be that kitch-producing wanker with the idiot followers.
Not sure if a professional art critic and writer are willing risk their career and reputation for a tiktoker and some money, it's their job to be objective. It's also the wrong market, would any "serious" or snobby art collector buy the tiktoker painting? Likely be a hard no
It is possible but unlikely. Of course, the idea of the "heel" [1] is well-established. But I find it hard to believe someone with an established career as a sober art critic would volunteer for the kind of negative attention this brought.
I do believe that sometimes these kind of antagonistic partnerships could arise spontaneously. For example, the art critic may find his own tribe standing up for him. That may goad him into looking for a similar reaction from other art influencers in an attempt to forward his own career. However, that doesn't require coordination between them or conspiracy.
HN is (very deliberately) my only social media other than what my friends send me.
I am not saying anything you don't already know by saying that parasocial relationships are so evil because they get the time that formerly would have gone into your real human relationships but don't give you anywhere near the payoff.
In many ways the genie is out of the bottle/Pandora's box is open but the attention economy might just be the most insidious technology ever invented.
At the core it's not that much different from how people have reacted over the ages to anyone dissing their favorite athlete, or the Pope, or making fun of the prophet Muhammad.
Once you take on a person or idea as part of your core, any attack upon that person or idea becomes a VERY personal attack upon you, and the response is visceral and irrational (I suspect that it actually suppresses the higher functions of the brain). I've watched so many people come apart at the seams when one of their sacred cows were attacked, even becoming violent in some cases.
The only difference nowadays is the speed with which people can reach this level of reveredness.
> The only difference nowadays is the speed with which people can reach this level of reveredness.
There is one other difference too: there's now an entire economy built around getting people to "this level of reveredness" for someone - doesn't matter who or why, the specific person or idea are not the point - and then pitting those someones against each other in dramas that are totally genuine and not at all unscripted. The point is to trigger and maintain this "visceral and irrational" response, because while in this state, the followers will happily buy pretty much any kind of high-margin, low-value garbage their favored online persona endorses, and they'll even feel good about it. It's a money printed machine.
I mean, it's one thing when people got angry over someone insulting the Pope, or the prophet Muhammad. It's different when you imagine Pope and prophet Muhammad were two besties, pitting their followers against each other, so they can sell them merch, raking in amounts of money they could've never get on their own. The latter is what's happening today, at scale.
The direction is the other way though. And it is a one way relationship. It is not the same concept as "influencer" fans, unless the diety is alive of course.
How is it the other way? The relationship of a believer to God is similar to that of a fan to, say, Taylor Swift. In both cases, the follower imagines a personal relationship that doesn't exist. The only substantial difference is that behind Taylor Swift's fictional public persona there is an actual human being (which is mostly irrelevant to the parasocial relationship).
My girlfriend's niece is in her 20s and talks incessantly about people she has never known or will never meet. She's a walking US magazine. It's disturbing that she treats PR releases like holy texts. These ARE the people in her life and they don't know she exists.
The phenomenon you're describing is hardly limited to parasocial relationships. Some people talk about sports teams, others about company stocks they have no valuable information on, others about drama in their subcultures, others about world news... we are about to start getting huge amounts of discussion around election polling in states none of your friends live in. "Do I have any power over anything related to this information?" has almost no psychological significance.
I do not know whether TV show plots belong in this list, but they might.
It’s maybe worse than what you say, because there is a vicious cycle where individuals whose time is absorbed by parasocial relationships are less available to people around them. Those people may in turn become isolated and turn to… parasocial relationships.
> individuals whose time is absorbed by parasocial relationships are less available to people around them.
I’ve seen Mastodon and Tumblr users post, “I’m sick of people saying I should spend time with my neighbors. They’re probably TERFs/MAGA/whatever.” (There may be analogues mutatis mutanda on other sites, I don’t know firsthand.) You’ll have a hard time convincing people that social walling-off is a bad thing when they have elevated it to a virtue.
>“I’m sick of people saying I should spend time with my neighbors. They’re probably TERFs/MAGA/whatever.”
This isn't entirely wrong-headed though, I think it's just a symptom of a society that's become too divided. If you want a healthy community of people living together in one place, they need to all share a common culture and ethical framework. In America these days, that just isn't the case, and you can't expect people to be buddies with people who happen to live close by, but have diametrically-opposed viewpoints and even view them as evil (for instance, the neighbor is a MAGA person and the person in question is homosexual).
I mean ... what of it? It's the strange idea that the critic is 'attacking' the artist and making him feel bad for no reason. So this random stranger is trying to make the critic emphasise with the poor smol bean artist. It's very odd.
“World’s Most Popular” - nevertheless, I’m fairly aesthetically inclined and this is the first time I’ve ever heard of the guy.
It’s also the case that the popular mainstream has become conservative to the point of fascism where it comes to critique. Positivity denying its opposite. The responses from the artist were also strange and overlooked their own contradiction, as in “you’re just one person with one opinion” (but my followers are also single people with single opinions, all of which must be positive at all times).
I have a MA in art and am currently on a commision that selects a painting professor for one of the prolific central european art schools. I have never heard of the guy.
There is a lot of art that is basically just crafts. Technically skilled and beautiful to many people who have been to a museum once or twice (and there are many of those!) — people are baffled by the fact that someone can paint realistically — ignoring a rich art history that should make clear that doing just that is the bare minimum and clearly not the point of good art.
But in the end all those works are more or less uninteresting beyond that. They lack the stuff that makes Mona Lisa's smile famous, the stuff that Hopper has in his pictures, the crows over the fields in Van Goghs paintings, Yves Kleins blue etc. If your art lacks the art while delivering technical skill it will still remain ultimately hollow. And if your ownly impact your art makes on the world is fighting your critics you should wonder why you are doing it.
Yes, his celebrity and fame stem from the performance, not the art. He could still have a long and successful celebrity career, periodically making waves with more commercialized and staged performances. Like Banksy, but with a good face and real backstory.
It's kinda clickbait, but at the start of an article it's laid out as this:
> He is, by some measures, the most famous artist in the world, with many millions of social media followers
Yeah this is what I mean. And I am certainly not a snob that thinks only what the upper class or academics see as art is actual art.
In fact bad taste in art is equally common in the upper class. Just have a look at how Silvio Berlusconi's heirs are struggling to sell the stuff he considered art for example.
Being known doesn't mean you are exemplary of what you are doing. If you have a famous youtube tutorial channel for javascript, you might be one of the most widely known javascript programmers — but that doesn't automatically mean you are the "best" (or even a half-way decent) programmer. It still might mean that you are a stellar teacher and an exceptional communicator, which worth a lot, but if you confuse yourself for something that you are not this is where the problems start.
To the general public that guy might be what they think a good Javascript-Dev looks like, but ultimatly he isn't. I had to think of Bob Ross: A legendary communicator, a good ambassador for the arts and a good human being, but I wouldn't buy his art if I found it at a thrift store. But Bob Ross knew that his skill was being a communicator for the arts and didn't confuse himself with the painters who managed to get their works into the big art instutions.
A comparison for the tech crowd would be the difference between being able to learn and write complex syntax and writing a clear, concise, bug-free software.
To non-software people the syntax is what seems impossibly hard and in their view writing a software that works, reliably is what should be easy. The truth is just the opposite. So to non-software people, someone writing Hello World in brainfuck would seem crazier than someone writing a good piece of software that solves a hard problem.
So judging the craft can be hard if you are not doing the craft yourself. A painter like Picasso could draw completely realistic at age 19 and spent the following decades doing more abstract things. Not because the realistic stuff was hard and he was lazy, but quite the other way around. Writing a complicated program with obscure syntax and many million lines is possible, but it takes a true master to do the same thing in a very readable, maintainable way, while making it shorter. Art can, at times, be very similar.
I don't think the coding analogy holds at all. To me, writing good working maintainable software of non trivial complexity is craft, and to call it that is high praise indeed. I'm not entirely sure what art is, but I think it tends to happen when someone wants to create for the sake of creating, rather than maximising commercial gain, status, or whatever. It's orthogonal to craft.
I enjoyed the Picasso museum in Barcelona and it was indeed eye opening to see his conventional but excellent architectural drawings ;-)
Picasso for example was a master because he understood that beyond the technical is where the real callenge lies. Now the question would be whether that beyond is part of the craft or not.
Ultimately this isn't that important, my point was rather about technicality. Technicality alone doesn't make a great master, just like syntax knowledge alone doesn't make you a great software engineer. But in coding the goal is typically to write good software and the criteria for good software are pretty clear — compared to what makes good art at least. Now as an artist you can totally suck at many things but be good at one specific thing that you did in a very specific and novel way and this alone can make the difference.
One could say with our subway painter that the special thing about him are not the paintings but how he medializes their creation. But just painting realistically is something many people can do, and many also can do better.
I do question calling those art. Monochromes were absolutely not new when Klein does a blue one. That's already quite mediocre. But then he makes more of the same painting. How is that art?
My considered opinion is "if it's not purely functional, it's art". Every other definition ends up self-contradictory. Screwdriver handles are art - 1,000 models of screwdrivers, all doing their job just fine, yet all with different handles. That's the designer putting forward his ideas of what evokes comfort, power, notability, progress, and whatever else, and in turn two different screwdrivers will generate different feelings in their owners. That's art; it may not be art that appeals to millions, or endures centuries, but very little does.
I know the definition (natural nor functional), but the post I'm replying to makes quite a distinction. It calls the work (there's another term for you) from the article not art. But Klein's Blue is one of the things that stands out to me as falling in the category "mediocre idea, mediocre execution." The idea was a cliche, the artist failed in conveying it in the execution, and the execution of the work itself was as good as the wall I painted last year. Why isn't my wall art?
Art imo always should have at least a tiny bit of anarchic moment as it tries to relate itself to the world that is. Of it doesn't or is purely about selling or copying, it stops being art.
A guy that paints walls for his job, isn't doing art, just because he holds a brush and paints a wall. But just because it is his job and it serves a function doesn't mean he couldn't create art when he paints a wall. In the end it is a lot about the mindset of the artist and how they are willing to involve others with that mindset.
But uninteresting to an art specialist like you does not make it uninteresting to his many, many fans. Of course what he does is art, what meaningful line can you put between art and craft? I'd even argue that he has far more impact on the world by bringing a little aesthetic happiness to millions than even a Turner-prize winning artist like Tai Shani, who's meaningful only to a few.
I am not an art specialist. I studied art, but my field was film, not painting. My mother is a painter so maybe that counts who knows.
I did not say anything about his role in society and whether it is okay to like him or not. It is. It was also great for Bob Ross for example to do what he did in communicating art: His paintings are not stellar examples of landscape painting, but he managed to inspire many people to go for the journey and that is worth a lot.
Subjectively, to me as someone who has a closer background to arts than most I find it lacks something — and that something might make all the difference between lasting love or forgetting him in a few years time. Other people might have differing opinions.
Think of any field you know something of. E.g. if you are in tech there might be some celebrity non-tech people see as a tech genius. But you know they are mediocre at best. That doesn't takw away from their ability to reach people, but it is not the same as being stellar in their field.
Establishment art is just technical proficiency mixed with good marketing. In fact, you can do what artists like Jeff Koons do and just skip the skip the technical proficiency step. I don't see how, at its core, it is any different from what this TikToker is doing.
Not sure if bare minimum is the right expression, when so many of the famous pieces could be easily replicated by my 5-yo niece - who could never reach said ”minimum”
I know people say this all the time, but I've yet to see anybody actually try. Pick some "famous pieces" and have your 5-year old niece try to reproduce them. I'm sure you (and she) will find there is a lot more to them than superficially meets the eye.
I am someone who does a lot of things many people feel are hard. I solder SMD on component level, I play fretless instruments, I program. Yet the hard part is never what you can just imitate.
Soldering SMD is something I can teach a non-electronic person in a few hours, for example. The hard part is knowing what to solder and when. Similarily learning to do the pure technical act of drawing or painting photorealistically can be learned. To paint motifs that are worth doing so and result in a "good picture" are something different entirely.
Maybe you have to take my word for it, as someone who in his life went through hundreds of art school applications, but there will be a difference between some abstract thing a person with true skill and talent did, and something your five year old neice did (nothing against her, maybe she has talent, who knows). Something being (seemingly, to the layperson) easy to copy does not mean that it is. Very often there will be much more behind the work than it seems on first glance. A lot of the very abstract stuff you will find in the museums for example was done in a time where nearly nobody dared to do this. So if your neice wanted to copy that, she needed to go back in time, grow up there and do it back when nobody did it. So yeah she could maybe do it. But she didn't.
When comparing abstract and concrete painting there is a lot to be discussed, but trust me when I say that people in the art scene probably look at art just in a different way that most people. Many people have misconceptions about art a la "what does the artist want to tell us" and then there is just a bunch of splashes on the canvas. The artist can sometimes be a trickster and the art understood from the context in which it was created. Sometimes art also just is and in a world where everything has to be about money, efficiency, entertainment, etc it can serve as a room of reflection with something that is beyond simple answers. I am not going to give a grand defense of abstract art here, I am not a painter and if I were it would probably not be purely abstract.
Now historically painters went into the abstraction when photography came around, which could create the photorealistic image very easily. Nowadays photorealistic painters often just take a photograph and (like your neice), copy it to the pixel. That is of course a lot of work, and maybe there is even a bit of art or rebellion in that amount of work itself, but I find it more interesting when people pull out things from seemingly nowhere in their very own and unique ways.
But I am a musician and I work a lot with harsh noises many people hate to hear. I don't think there is any need for me to even attempt to defend what I like to do and so shouldn't painters.
I'm an artist and I've never heard of him until now, but then again I am not into TikTok. Drawing people in public is pretty basic stuff for people who get a degree in art; it's not anything new or original. He is clearly very good at gaining an audience which is a good skill, and his portraits seem very skillful from what I can see. Realism is a very minor type of art since photography exists; outside of TikTok it's not a big market. But dealing with criticism is also a necessary skill which he seems to lack. One person is an artist; the other 8B people are critics.
Thats one of the things that people forget about social media. It is mostly a younger, inexperienced people who get entertained by new things that people haven't seen before. Its not their fault, they just have not lived enough yet.
Perhaps the fact you've never heard of him is why this is such an explosive situation. An art critic sees "just some guy who is very skilled at painting" but literally millions of people see him as "the best modern painter" because the state of nuanced art isn't exactly at the forefront of society's interests.
The art world as participating artists see it isn't the art world the rest of the world sees. These Tiktok people are to art what televised wrestling is to martial arts: very skilled people performing impressive feats designed for entertainment more than anything.
I got it. The art is technically very well executed, but it’s nevertheless a hyper realistic take of an extremely bland instagram-type photo, again and again, which makes sense why it would be popular on instagram, and amongst the blandified youth with little taste and little knowledge of art history. Not really surprising.
The point of the original review is actually that it's his tik tok fame and video format that is what creates the audience and not the art itself. His fans have little interest in the actual art, it's the vicarious and voyeuristic aspect that his fortune is built off, the art is incidental.
Yeah, the painting is boring, safe, well trodden material (and he's not good at hands!) but the phenomenon is social media. The hype machine. The parasocial relationships.
Many extremely famous artists are also performance artists. Dali, Picasso, Warhol, Hirst, Banksy. All of them made some kind of performance to go alongside the art, whether it's crazy personality, or controversy, or nobody knowing what you look like, it's a performance. You need to get people talking about you and the art will only get you so far, in many cases. Great as, for example, Dali's art is, would he have been as famous without the mustache and pet anteater?
Of course there's plenty of counterexamples where the art alone was enough for fame. Esther and Van Gogh come to mind.
Right, but Picasso's performance was of _himself_ alongside his art. This guy is making a performance out of the act of making the art, and then people's real-time reaction to that art.
The article here and the earlier article that triggered the social media kickback both assert that "the art" includes both the images and the staging and presentation on social media.
Much like <insert other famous artist> who made themselves an essential intertwined part of the <other famous artist> art show.
He doesn’t need to be crying about not getting gallery representation then. He could also think about the aboriginal artists in Australia, who live totally offline and in the desert 300 miles away from the middle of nowhere, who still nevertheless manage to get gallery representation. Will be interesting to see what he’s producing in 5-10 years time.
He seems to be a talented speed drawer, street performer. Probably the best of those seen in touristy spots.
Art? ... probably. Or definitely, according to the nervous masses furious about the uninterested or unfriendly parts of the world.
I'll decide later if I am ashamed of not knowing him and still not that much interested.
It was an interesting 15 minutes of my life I spent on this phenomenon though.
Well, one could be faily musically inclined and never have listened to "despacito" on the height of its fame.
And I think that in this case,the critic was kind of a dick in his critic. In a very knowledgeable and eloquent manner he implies that if (from his perspective) the painter is not very good nor the art he produces, then the only explanation is that all the people who enjoys his art are gullible simpletons who don't know art. He has every right to have this opinion, of course, but he shouldn't be surprised if the gullible simpletons in question loudly disagree.
See also the Theory of Chinese (Indian) Indifference: No matter how famous you are, not matter how notable your accomplishments, a billion Chinese (Indians) have never heard of you and couldn't care less.
Either one of the lucky 10,000 or one of a smaller number pointing out that he’s not the world’s most popular painter. “World’s most popular” painter amongst the demographic of American TikTok users under the age of 35.
You’d have to say “painting”. I’d say the art of Taylor Swift would probably be enjoyed more regularly and wholeheartedly if we’re talking about the entire class of artists. If we’re talking about the entire class of content creators on TikTok, then I don’t have the stats.
He might technically be the most popular painter, but only because he's extremely popular among a narrow demographic. It's like how the most popular youtube channels are the ones with animated children's songs. Sure, they're the most popular but in a diverse population relatively few would have heard about them.
I’d hazard a guess that there are more people who are wearing clothes featuring art by Keith Haring than this guy has followers. But if we’re talking about artists who are alive, then Keith probably doesn’t count. All the best artists are dead.
I've seen this kind of thin-skinned, childish behaviour far too many times in the past. One instances, from years ago, really stands out.
A well-known language learning blogger posted a review of a learning site (created by another blogger, with whom he had several disagreements). The review was generally positive, but the other blogger took undue offense to some of the criticisms in the review (which were laid out politely and accurately). He not only posted a snarky "review" of blog from whence the review sprang but his followers jumped in, castigating the reviewer in various online forums.
While I never expected corners of the internet to be a revival of Enlightenment-era salons, I'd hoped that they wouldn't be virtual pile ons. I'm naive ...
In film school we had this super kind dude who was generally very popular among our class (I liked him a lot too). He would always get raving reviewers in our critique and criticism (C&C) class. Frankly, I always found his work to be very mediocre but he was just such a sweet guy nobody gave him any straight feedback. One day he brought in a film to our C&C class that was so poorly white balanced I couldn't not say something. So I stuck up my hand and told him "the white balance is so poorly executed on this everyone looks like they're suffering from a severe case of jaundice. It's all I can focus on and it's not helping your film". I think it was the first time he had gotten direct feedback and he started to cry and left the room. Boy did I ever get it from the rest of the class. People really laid into me, folks wouldn't talk to me for a week after etc. It was so annoying because everyone loved him and nobody wanted to hurt his feelings. After I went to see our C&C class prof for a 1:1 and I explained the situation, he said in your career you're going to have to give a lot of feedback, and it's going to be hard to know how everyone will react to it. Some people will start a war, some people will improve, but to tilt it the scale against war... always start by finding something good and talking about that first. I've used that advice going forward and I suspect it's served me well.
I agree with you, although I think your example does perhaps display some missing social understanding, even if the intention was good-natured.
> the white balance is so poorly executed on this everyone looks like they're suffering from a severe case of jaundice. It's all I can focus on and it's not helping your film
It's a bit much right? There is a way to give strong negative feedback without sounding affected. You could have communicated the same thing with the slightly toned down: "The white balance is really poorly executed unfortunately. It's all I can focus on and it's not helping your film."
I liked the original article by the author as an example of giving negative feedback.
Very easy to offend or unprotectet to criticism people will not react differently to your just "sligthly" toned version. Slight toning is insufficient when the reaction is that implosive. And I am unsure if this is where the change need to happen - considering that this is critiques class not universal sensitivity training -, but in the receiving end instead. The tone of the original wasn't that harsh, the cut part was more like illustrational/explanatory.
> ... always start by finding something good and talking about that first.
It's sometimes called the "shit sandwich". (1) Say something nice about the person's work, (2) then shit all over it, (3) then say something else nice about it.
That "banana on the wall" art piece was an original thought to critize art, but my oh my that wasn't art in the slightest deserving a spot in that art gallery. Though the guy eating the banana on camera corrected all that. Masterful finishing.
I agree, actually in reading the original review by Ben and I think it was a very fair and balanced bit, heck it's hardly even an art review I found it's a social commentary more generally.
Just the whole situation spurred that thought about feedback and criticism, and how you never know how people will react - so I thought I'd share it.
yes art critiques, specifically giving them, was probably the most formative part of my school days. I arrived at the same formula - you need to 'steelman' the artists intentions first - then your critique becomes directed at the steelman, not at them personally.
Ben Davis should create his own art show, posting all the hate messages he got. He can call it “Conversations with Devon and his followers”
It can include an installation where a performer demonstrates all the threats on a Ben Davis effigy. “And here we have the performer shooting a flamethrower at a small model of Davis’ house as per hate message received on $date from ShadyFan23 on Facebook”.
An aside, but I doubt that he got many hate messages literally via Facebook. After all only boomers (defined as anyone over 30) use Facebook these days.
The author posted a review of you shortly after your review or fifteen years later? Both are bizarre and messed up, I'm not even sure which one would be worse.
This is why I've moved away from arguing with people on the internet, because there are too many people out there today who are absolutely deranged and will make it literally their life's mission to stalk you through every means at their disposal.
Also - mostly thanks to discord - it's trivial to summon an army of kids who are under the age of criminal responsibility who will do almost anything (online) if you kick them a few robux.
it may not have elicited quite the extreme reaction. a 3 can be harsher than a 1.
while an “unredeemable moron” might leave one star, that may not meet the bar for a response. while fighting with idiots on the internet is a past time, it is typically one entertained by… idiots.
a three star review, on the other hand. no, this takes thought. a thinker left that harsh judgement. a foolish thinker, but a thinker. thoughtful, but wrong, incorrect. flawed. no mere idiot, so it must be an asshole. and we can’t have that. justice must be preserved.
The article is really nice, with a fresh perspective on how we-the-public (or, rather, segments of the public with very different worldview) perceive creations and creators, and how that seems changed recently because of the incentives driven by social media.
But perhaps similar interplay of the triangle of artist-fans-critic was already there a century or two ago, just on a smaller scale ?
The first issue is that it's too long, so none of his ticky-tocky-tribe even read it.
Joking aside, the review doesn't feel over the top or unfair and given that any review is an opinion piece, it's the reaction that was way over the top.
It's so simultaneously baffling and repulsive to me that a celebrity can so easily weaponize their throngs of parasocial adoring masses and point them like a mob cannon at somebody. It's unfortunate how tribalism / pack mentality quickly leads to control and manipulation.
Most of Beatles fans I encounter are half my age. I don't know what's going on, I think Beatles are quite boring and very shallow but maybe they were on to something.
It's kind of a justified title if people generally only know the brand, not the creators behind them these days. And from a critics' perspective that makes a huge difference, as pointed out in the article.
Painter here. Rodriguez gained his popularity from staged videos that seem to indicate he drew people on the subway. To any serious figure/portrait artist it is immediately clear he copied the drawings from photographs.
I'm not saying it's impossible to make good drawings on the subway. But the line qualities of his drawings indicate multi-hour techniques that are popular among amateurs.
I can't deny his success, but he's a grifter more than a draughtsman.
Can you go into more detail about this? As in how do you know? I'm an amateur artist myself and was amazed he could get these portraits done so quickly. But I wouldn't rule out that he just learned to do it quickly personally.
I can, but it's not straightforward so I'll have to do so this evening or tomorrow morning when I have a keyboard. Check back for a separate comment.
Edit: An example of a person who could have actually done this 'for real' was Kim Jung Gi. Until I get back, go take a look at his work, the line-only pen drawings in particular (or one-color brush pen stuff) and compare it to how Rodriguez's stuff looks. KJG has a 'decisiveness' of line[0] that comes from clarity of 'drawing thought'. Rodriguez has mark-making[0] that is consistent with a novice painstakingly copying a photo.
[0] 'mark making' is an umbrella term for the quality of the marks that make up a drawing/painting, separate from whatever they depict.
[edit] some links seem broken, will maybe fix later. Hopefully the overall gist is clear.[/edit]
Sorry for the delay, turned out busier than I expected!
Apologies if this is a bit meandering. The main point I'm making here is that Rodriguez claims to 'draw from life' i.e. directly observing his subjects, and I believe he actually works from photographs. The dead giveaway is that there's a certain look that "talented-amateur" drawings from photographs have that drawings from life do not. This 'look' can be overcome[0] by people with lots of life-drawing experience, but I digress. The thing about photographs is that the image mapping from 3d space to 2d space, as well as the recording of light/dark relationships has all been done already by the camera. When you draw from life, you have to make lots of decisions and carefully organize all of the visual information yourself. When you copy a photograph, you only worry about how dark each x-y position is. There's a bit more to it, but the short of it is that there's a distinct 'look' that you can easily recognize if you have a lot of experience drawing from life (or you've looked at a lot of old paintings made prior to cameras[1]).
To help you better see this 'look', google "hyperrealism drawings". It's a bunch of artists all drawing the same thing: high contrast, high detail (often somewhat wonky) photograph copies. There's very little of the individual artists' 'identities' coming through because they're not making any decisions, they're just copying the information recorded by the camera. The wonkiness happens because the way the camera recorded the organization of lights & darks is different than what a human would actually percieve.
Another giveaway is the lighting on Devon's drawings. People who are drawing from life basically never have a light source pointed at the subject directly from their point of observation. However, in lots of drawings from photographs, that's exactly the way the subject is lit because the main light source was the flash from the camera.
If you scroll down his page a bit, there's a woman with red hair holding a painting of herself. Throughtout the entire video as he is "painting", you can see that they are lit from her left. However, in the final painting that you can see in the thumbnail, the strongest light is from her right, with a fill light on the other side. It's obviously some sort of studio lighting. The painting clearly does not match the light of the scene he is allegedly painting from. It does seem like he's actually making the painting on location, but the space between them seems concealed. I would wager there's a photo there that he's copying (I admit I did not watch the whole video to confirm).
Detail #??? is that the overall look of the drawings gives away that they were made with pencil hatching from a photo, because they look just like the drawings that I made, hatching with a pencil, from photos. Here someone could argue "No, what if Rodriguez really is that incredible? What if he can actually just draw those drawings on a bumpy subway ride, from a moving subject, in 30-40 minutes[2]?" If that were the case, and he had that level of talent, I'd ask why his drawings otherwise look so... bad. Check out this portrait of Matt Damon (pause right at the beginning): https://www.instagram.com/p/Cxgh-yYvlEL/. It's a horrible likeness. Without knowing the context that it was a drawing of Matt Damon, would you be confident of the subject's identity?
If Rodriguez really was so incredible, why do his drawings look like every other amateur graphite photo copy and not more attractive drawings-from-photos like these:
Maybe you can see some of the difference concerning that difference in 'look' between life drawing and photo-copying[3]. There's more solidity, facial features seem more 'locked in' to the head, there's a more careful arrangement of the brightest lights and darkest darks to focus your attention. Whereas in Rodriguez's drawings the lights and darks are all over the place (as they also are in the 'hyperrealist' drawings).
Admittedly, the first two are students at GCA where most of the paintings are notably very long poses, 20+ hours. However, the last link is to a Sargent, and iirc his charcoal portraits were 2-4 hour affairs. Sargent was among the ~100 most talented (debatable, but again I digress) to have ever lived and he certainly outclasses Rodriguez. If he takes 4 hours to draw a portrait with charcoal, which is a dramatically faster medium than graphite pencil because you can use it like paint, there's no way Rodriguez is rendering full figures in graphite pencil in ~30-40 minutes (unless he's copying a photograph which isn't moving).
[1] Someone will certainly read this and cite 'Tim's Vermeer' at me. I strongly disagree with the claims of the film that lenses were 'central' to artists' workflows. A. I have a camera lucida that collects dust because it only gets in the way. B. People like Alex Ramon Hurtado have done extensive research into how past artists painted and lenses were not much more than a novelty. C. David Hockney can barely paint, so when he says something is "impossible without the help of a camera lens" I would assert that he hasn't got a clue what is and isn't possible.
[2] I'm guessing an average NYC subway commute time here. But it raises another great point! Devon's videos show that he's 'surprising' these people with drawings, so clearly he hasn't asked them "how long are you going to be riding for?" What happens if the person just gets up after 10 minutes and he's only 20% through the drawing? Does he just get lucky every time?
[3] The drawings by Sajad Khaleghi IMO are another exception to the rule, that guy's work is really strong. Wish I could speak/read arabic (or whatever language that is). There are a couple places he slips though, like this one: https://www.instagram.com/p/CzHBzZ5Oc0v/?img_index=4. If you look at how the eyes are set into the skull and the overall shape of the head, there's some clear distortion from the camera.
[BONUS] There's a video where he is allegedly setup to paint Jared Leto directly from life. I don't think I've ever seen a video with less sincerity: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cwg7r4ws9px/. Models don't ever sit for 5 straight hours, they take breaks every 40 minutes (at a maximum). A '5 hour pose' usually happens over the course of 8 hours. An experienced model might go longer, but I have sincere doubts Mr. Leto would be happy to give up an entire day for a portrait of the quality that Rodriguez gives him at the end. (compare the quality of that painting to even the 'sketchier' portraits from the GCA students).
ANYWAY, like I said this is a little scattered. There are a lot more clues and indications all over, but I kinda gotta go do stuff instead of writing a thesis on HN. Overall I actually agree a lot with the Artnet critic. Rodriguez should be commended for his success and expertise. However, that expertise is in social media and brand management, not drawing and painting.
Gotcha, thanks so much for this, very enlightening.. I have noticed that certain drawings have that "look" but I hadn't put my finger on the reason why like you have here. I'm assuming you're an artist yourself?
> He is, by some measures, the most famous artist in the world, with many millions of social media followers.
"Some measures" being a key phrase here. As is always the case with counts of followers, subscribers, watchers, likers, commenters, views, etc. there's rarely if ever any mention of the relative value of a single unit of the above, and perhaps more importantly the cost of any single follow, subscription, watch, like, comment or view and its relative value.
The social media platforms where these things are posted are practically cost-free for a viewer, save for perhaps paying for a subscription to replace advertising, but without any real cost to view or follow it's impossible to determine the value that a viewer places in the thing-to-be-viewed.
I wonder what percentage of the millions of followers would pay $1 a month for ongoing access to view Rodriguez' work, and of those how many would keep that payment going.
This is nothing to say about the actual quality of Rodriguez' art of course, just musings on the value placed in things that are practically costless to a viewer.
Being known for anything by millions of people is a perfectly valid indication of popularity.
If I had to pay a dollar a month to keep seeing Van Gogh paintings, or Andy Warhol, or any artist for that matter. I don't care about art and I doubt the vast majority of humanity would consider spending money on access to any particular artist's work, excluding bands and such.
The art world professional artists and art critics see isn't the art world most people see. Some look at a banana taped to a wall and see a strong message about the state of the art industry, or see the peanut butter floor as a daring exercise in discovering the boundaries of art, but I just see pretentious idiots scamming rich people into giving them money. There's a lot of value to art, but that value isn't necessarily based on what the art industry considers valuable.
I wonder if tiktok is just one big hood culture. Where everyone is trying to defending their reputation. As any attack, no matter how minor is an attack on their honour.
Definitely feels like it based on that painters reaction.
You say hood culture but it's just human culture/human nature. We're all animals at the end of the day!
TikTok is all about clout generation, if you're a content producer then you're used to positive feedback & I'm pretty sure TikTok's dark patterns will definitely involve promoting positive comments on your videos and burying negative ones.
They want you to have that Oxytocin feelgood rush again & again because...then you keep using their app!
They've already been found to do things like show Ukraine videos to Ukrainians but hide them from Russians, whereas Russians are shown cute cat videos and fake news about Ukraine. Pretty sure their dark patterns will include exactly that: find your demographic and push more of what you like, hide negativity and boost positivity within your bubble. Although most social media platforms are guilty of this; it's how they work.
What makes TikTok different? Well they've very clearly targeted a much younger demographic, I remember back in what 2017-2018 or so? Stickers with the TikTok logo but nothing else slapped onto utility poles, atms, etc in a guerrilla marketing move designed to capture a certain demographic. But it's also largely short form content - dopamine hit, dopamine hit, dopamine hit. But it makes me wonder if it trains users to react with no long term attachment. See this dude's video, send a hate/death threat message, pop back into TikTok and move on to the next funi feelgood video.
Does consumption of shortform content have an effect on attention span/apathy?
If you etch away anyone's social norms you will get the same person, because everybody is the same. This might not be exactly true because of personality differences, but it is exactly true when the population is big enough for all personalities to be represented.
If the selection criteria for two groups of people is "anybody" and the rules imposed on them are, "do whatever comes naturally in the absence of institutions or accepted culture," the things you see the groups doing will be almost exactly the same.
Korean news agencies have been caught multiple times posting something inflammatory on social media just to report on it and cause outrage. The media have become literal outrage building machines.
I assume it isn’t limited to Korea and happens all around the world :(
The tabloid press sparking developments that it can then cover, is decades old at least. Things like giving cash to a celebrity who is well-known for drug or alcohol addiction, so that the tabloid can then write about the crazy bender that he goes on with that money.
Pretty interesting.
I find this idea on the internet that you can't be critical about anything annoying. I actually only run into this in online comment sections. People show up and start asking "why do you care", like we shouldn't be thinking about our actions and others and how they impact that world?
Also an interesting instance where marketing is why he is popular. I don't think the paintings and drawings stand on their own. I think most can achieve this level of skill with some dedication. Agree with the point about what sells is the whole package of reaction videos. Is it really art or just a new form of commercials to get followers.
The article is hidden with CSS (and apparently later shown with JS, but not shown at all if JS is disabled, and there is no indication of that), but disabling CSS or switching to reader mode helps.
I’m sure the author, Ben Davis, must have had an inclination as to what he was going up against with Rodriguez but even if he didn’t, kudos for sticking it out with the fascinating followup.
When your subject is as famous for their tough street narrative as they are for their work then you can’t be too surprised if they feel obliged to react all hood in public. It’s a missed opportunity for Rodriguez though when he could have played his “stay humble my dude” card while… being actually humble. Is he a thug or not? Pick a lane.
The problem with existence as performance art is that we will never know if Rodriguez’ lashing out was genuine, or just another part of his rags-to-riches outsider story. At this level, his posts could just as well be coming from his PR team as from him at which point the furore and performance is definitely taking over from anything this guy does with a pencil. Is Rodriguez’ level of naivety and lack of self reflection evidence of this being his genuine self, or of his PR team’s perfectly formed ideal of how the Rodriguez phenomenon ought to be projecting itself?
This is a really nice piece and very thoughtful and professional. I'm pleasantly surprised as things with titles of this sort are much more typically someone playing the victim card under circumstances where it's not possible to sort out who is "the guilty party" and who is "the real victim."
I actually clicked into it expecting to feel like "Why is this on the front page of HN?" and I don't feel that way at all.
In fact, the only way I can understand Rodriguez’s incredibly thin-skinned reaction to my article is that he has managed to rise to this status of apex visibility without any kind of critical writing about him at all. It’s all just been feel-good profiles, so that the first critical word feels like a huge crisis. That’s a relatively new kind of situation for an artist to be in, and worth analyzing.
In addition to this, he more or less makes the point that Rodriquez is so famous because he cultivates a personal relationship to his audience or a "faux personal" -- a parasocial one -- and his fans are more invested in that than in his art per se. This is the opposite of how it usually goes in traditional art circles. Usually, the art comes first and then people become interested in the artist.
It's interesting to me because I've spent a lot of years trying to sort out how to have a "relationship to the public" -- a constructive one, a professional one. Women on the internet tend to attract a lot of drama and I've spent a lot of time trying to sort things out in a way that makes sense to me so I can try to get that down to a dull roar and I have found it helpful to see male-coded behavior as being about being raised to have "a real career," which boils down to a professional relationship to the public, to people who are not family and friends, and female-coded behavior as about personal relationships.
How do you make that professional versus personal distinction that this article touches on? How do you get people interested in your work instead of interested in some faux "personal" relationship to a woman they really don't know well but want to imagine they do for reasons I have trouble grasping?
And so this piece parallels some of my observations about gender issues. I think women get raised to have personal relationships and don't get raised to have professional lives and when we go online, we talk and behave in a way that is very personal. Other people hunger for that, want more of it, actively encourage women to do more of that and no one tells us "Honey, that's unprofessional" and if they do we tend to feel like "You're just a sexist pig trying to gatekeep me out!" and not like "Oh. I didn't realize doing X was a problem."
So it's interesting to me to see this piece and I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected. I really expected this to be another internet "he said/she said" kind of thing and I'm blown away that it's not that at all and we need more of this type of analysis of how and why things sometimes go sideways on the internet. It's our only hope of having fewer such incidents.
Personal-professional relationships are stronger than professional images, especially as it becomes less and less possible to get a job without a well-placed reference from a friend who is willing to go to bat for you. Although companies in the tech industry make more effort to have "meritocratic" (in fact random, there's nothing meritocratic about trying to guess someone's project management ability using eight hours of talking to people they've never met before, spread out over days) I see this being eroded over time as everyone pulls together in our low-interest-rate where's-the-recession, it's-coming-any-day-now environment. Although hiring managers might disagree on whose friends among them should be hired, they will all silently agree that the hiring system needs to only hire friends of somebody. That's what drives the evolution of corporate process in an inexorable slide towards the equilibrium most industries have already reached, one where consultants are brought in to cover the holes left by bringing in old friends.
I think the interchangeable parts era of tech work is nearly over and we're heading into something that will look more like highly paid roles in other industries. This could do a lot for gender equality[0], or maybe destroy it[1].
[0] Discrimination can work its way into randomized panel type scenarios because biases tend to show up in averages of first impressions more than they do in long-term relationships. That's why they use an "implicit bias test" that involves flashing pictures at you, and why the "I have female friends," argument is not taken seriously by anybody. What psychologists are telling us is that discrimination is maximized in the snap judgement scenarios posed by modern hiring processes.
[1] A network of long-term professional relationships that can't be unseated by anyone that isn't taken on as an apprentice literally describes the patriarchy.
I do think there's a bright line, but it's between trying to express yourself while negotiating reasonable emotional common ground (personal) and constantly trying to prove yourself while expanding your "turf" of opinions and beliefs as far as possible (professional), which is then confused in context when people operate in one mode in an environment that really fits the other. The complementary mode swap to the one you are talking about, are the crowd who argue non-stop in the Twitter replies of people who were just having a thought and not actually planning to become a Socratic philosopher. That is the consequence of treating every interaction like it's a task-focused meeting with implied rewards for whoever comes out looking like they were on the top of it.
The author perhaps implies, but doesn't outright state, what seems obvious to me:
Rodriguez got defensive and spread FUD about the critic because he was worried about being exposed as a phony. (At least as far as the surprise setups and "where does my talent really lie" aspect). Pretty simple and straightforward.
Most of those adoring followers probably know it in the back of their minds too, so defending him helps defend the shared illusion.
And using anti-gatekeeping as the righteous rallying cry is especially brilliant & effective. A good internet mob needs that SJW aspect.
I have a thin skin so I solve this problem by making sure everything I produce is so perfect and wonderful that no one would ever have a negative comment
Dudes like this have been painting mediocre portraits for tourists in NYC forever. This dude is just the first to effectively use social media to promote his otherwise forgettable illustrations.
If he can toughen up (or shrug it off) and continue to develop as a human and an artist – and manage to hold on to his sizable audience while he's doing it – he could make his mark.
An artist doesn’t exist in isolation. It’s natural that other people who also see themselves as artists will look at your work critically. If you’re e.g. an engineer, who spent many hours practicing and honing your skills, then you see someone else calling themselves an engineer but you think they don’t deserve the title, you’ll complain (as you should; that’s called “society”). The superficial and childish way he reacted simply confirms the shallowness that the critic pointed out.
As for the critic’s role in all of it, it is clearly necessary. There is a misconception that to be a fan you need to be a rabid fan, but these are just the loudest ones. A normal person who is not an internet warrior and stumbles upon his work deserves to know his honesty is contested, so they can make their own assessment of his true skills.
it's not that I don't like it, it's a skill, and it's cute and if you stretch the definition that far you can include Hallmark christmas cards et al as art if you want, but as a proud elitist, it simply isn't, and you can throw social media poets in too.
If I heard the name "Devon Rodriguez", I'd ask who that was. I'd recall "Subway Portrait Guy" but only after a moment.
Yeah, he's good but he's not great as the reviewer pointed out: he's just popular because his videos showing the reactions are uplifting. Just like Thomas Kinkade paintings were good, but not substantial, and he was so popular you could buy his paintings in the mall in the 90's.
Subway Portrait Guy siccing his fans on the reviewer is just thin-skinned.
I mean I'm not that surprised, MIB put it one way: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
I think TikTok has human elements that are interesting to think about. The short form content/attention span/apathy problem. It took what Vine started and then mixed it with psychological techniques/dark patterns to create what they have now.
For example, misinformation has always been a human problem, technology just makes it easier to spread it. But like...but I think it's interesting to look at different forms of content and how digestible they make false information, or hate, or violence.
If I speak for 60 minutes on how "zoo animals escaped in Paris during the protests" then people will likely not believe me. If I create a 30s TikTok video with a dark soundtrack people will watch it and move on, then regurgitate the false info later.
It's also a clout addiction engine. Humans are social animals and we want to be LIKED. Like SO MUCH. Attention is a drug and TikTok delivers, that has created a storm of content that used to be a "skit" and is now presented as something that "actually happened".
And the responses vary from someone watching the short form content and then moving on, believing it happened. To people claiming "well it's obviously scripted, it's a joke, duh". My problem is that skits are generally made obvious that it's a skit - see channels/people who are musicians who "just happen" to constantly play a public piano and then have a "stranger from the public" join them for a duet. It's all clout/attention generation.
It's not inherently bad I suppose, but the "this actually happened" style of content makes it especially easy for young people (TikTok's userbase) to eagerly swallow the false information content in between stuff like this.
Vine max users: 200M. TikTok current: 1000M! Hmmm.
Idk, maybe I'm just getting older lmao. Get off my lawn!
> Devon Rodriguez is almost certainly the most famous artist in the world, at least on one level. Almost no one I know has ever heard of him.
It's clear that the author means that in _popular circles_, he's very famous, but in _critical circles_, he's unknown. The author isn't trying to draw a comparison with Van Gogh. He's trying to make a statement about the changing nature of what it means to be a popular artist.
I think the parent post is making a very valid point that even in _popular circles_ he's relatively unknown, as his fan base may be large, very intense and vocal on social media but is still tiny fraction of the general public, the vast majority of whom have never heard of this artist but would know various older mainstream artists.
"Many millions" is a lot when compared to my popularity, but insignificant when compared to actually popular artists.
Like, HN is not a forum where art critics would be overrepresented, and it would be somewhat reasonable reflection "popular circles" and even one that favors an artist which, according to the article, draws heavily on younger and more app-using population than the general one. If we'd have a poll right here about artists people can name, do you really think that he would come out on top? Or even be in top 10?
I'd probably struggle to name three living painters (the claim in the title wasn't about "artists" but "painters"). It feels like a moribund artform, there's no such thing as a mainstream painter any more. If there's fame to be had in it, it's mostly due to the art being attached to something else (comics, games, or in this particular case TikTok videos) rather than as standalone pieces of art.
It's actually kind of interesting. There's tons of living actors, authors, directors, and musicians that are household names on a global scale. But architects, painters, poets or sculptors? Everyone I can think of is dead.
> I'd probably struggle to name three living painters (the claim in the title wasn't about "artists" but "painters").
Hockney, Hirst (even if he only moved into painting fairly recently), Kit Williams. But yeah I'm struggling to come up with a fourth.
> It's actually kind of interesting. There's tons of living actors, authors, directors, and musicians that are household names on a global scale. But architects, painters, poets or sculptors? Everyone I can think of is dead.
Architects I disagree with, but for the rest there's a lot more competition lately. Painting never really recovered its social standing after the rise of photography. There are a lot of alternatives to a poetry reading, many of them more enjoyable or at least more accessible.
She's not a mere dauber. She's skilled. She's not just a "conceptual artist".
I thought Picasso was all about revolutionizing art, until I visited the Picasso Museum in Barcelona, and saw his juvenilia. Then I realized that he was an extremely skilled draughtsman, anatomist and figurative painter.
I'm not keen on Tracy Emin, but I was mistaken to underestimate her.
> There's tons of living actors, authors, directors, and musicians that are household names on a global scale. But architects, painters, poets or sculptors?
It's music too.
The largest concerts in history according to Wikipedia belong to Vasco Rossi, Bijelo Dugme, and Glay.
Ever heard of them?
I suspect we're simply unaware of the marketing bias we're all walking around with.
Usually "most X person in the world" implies "living". Otherwise, the phrase is usually "most X person ever" or "in history".
That said, I've never heard of this person, but I'm probably way out of touch with popular art. When I think of popular living artists, I think of Dale Chihuly, Takashi Murakami, and Banksy.
This is completely false. I might even say that it is wishful thinking. Some kind of "long arc of history bends towards justice" make-believe.
The contrary is almost certainly true: picking fights with well-selected made up enemies is an effective way to promote a brand that is based on virtue. It transforms an inactive/passive audience into an active participant in a movement. I would bet many of the people attacking this art critic wrote their first comment in defense of this artist. He subtly said "I need your help" and his audience reacted.
The art critic noted the manufactured TikTok videos, obviously planned by a media savvy PR team. Perhaps he isn't cynical enough to believe it, but this sustained and coordinated attack against him may well have been planned and orchestrated.