Thread by @guingonabart

Here goes. @Joseph_Morong is actually right. Art for money is actually artfully done commerce, strictly speaking. This might not be a popular thing but hear me out. Artists primarily (note the qualifier) create art because they want to express some truth. TRUTH. so there's such a

thing as artistic truth. Artists use tools such as metaphor and color and technique to express this truth. Scientists also express themselves but their tools are induction and deduction and experimentation. Thus, scientific truth. Artists' and scientists' primary loyalty is to

TRUTH. But once this truth resonates, or is done in an artistic or scientific manner that enlarges the world view, it is often rewarded with material gain. many artists and scientists are recognized in their lifetimes. Many only after they are gone. Ergo: "before their time." Now

there are those who create "art" with the end in mind of "selling" (in addition to expressing the truth) and sometimes the line is blurred between "pop" (popular) art and "high" art because both are done truthfully. It's the difference between Taylor Swift and say, Philip Glass.

All art is meant to convey an individual's truth. And the more truthful, the more particular, the more universal ironically. If a work doesn't proceed from this truth, it is probably not art. In summary, ANYTHING that is done PRIMARILY for money is not art. Art is created

PRIMARILY to express truth.

Many here are thinking that I am demeaning the artist's work by saying it has no monetary worth. On the contrary! The most truthful artists (even those that are not recognized in their lifetimes-- think Van Gogh) are sooner or later given their due.

AND for the record, both commercialism and artistry need not be mutually exclusive! I totally disagree with any statement that says that any financially successful piece is not art. Lady Gaga is an artist and "Born This Way" is a piece of art! What makes it so artistic is that it

proceeds from her truth 1st and foremost. And we know it because we see it's true! We, the arbiters of her art just... KNOW it’s true. Now ask yourself how you know it. The melody? The lyrics? Her vocal technique? Standards that define art.

Or rather that define the EFFECTIVENESS of an artistic piece. Because that’s all we can judge a piece by: its effectiveness at conveying what an artist wants to say.

But that begs the question: what DOES the artist want to say? This is where the audience needs to do as much work as the artist (otherwise it’s not an equal relationship). As an audience you NEED to know what the artist’s intent is. You cannot judge a Mondrian

as if it were made by a 4 year old. You as an audience need to know that abstract expressionism was only made possible by the advent of calculus; that Impressionism only happened because of photography (therefore making pictorial fidelity unnecessary), that cubism

happened only when the idea of putting 3-dimensional reality onto 2-dimensional space was a questing of artistic standards; that surrealism was only possible after Freud. You as an audience have the power to know. And judge. Based on the artist’s premise. And there are standards.

Sa madaling salita, tanungin mo sarili mo:”Saan nanggaling yan?”