• Crampon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    13 hours ago

    It’s not a protected title. Go to town with it.

    But it’s diluting the value of it if you carry no talent but want all the recognition.

        • YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          10 hours ago

          What’re you defining ‘value’? Monetary, sure but what of emotional value? What’re you defining as ‘quality’? What’s high quality art to you? What’s valuable in your view? I garuntee that’s not the same for everyone.

        • YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          No, the value of art is specific to each individual. A picture made by someone with no talent can be of enormous value to someone because of what it means, the relationship they have with the creator, the emotions it makes them feel etc.

          Tieing value to talent suggests that a picture by someone who has trained for 5 years is somehow more ‘valuable’ than a picture by someone who has only trained for 4. Why? What metric is being used to determine ‘value’? What metric determines ‘talent’? Art is entirely subjective. To try and define it’s value is missing the point, because it means something different to everyone.

      • Jonathan Hendry@iosdev.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        13 hours ago

        @YungOnions

        What do you mean value?

        Emotional value? No. Many parents value their small child’s drawings.

        Market value? Mostly yes. Especially in commercial art like art commissioned for book covers. Untalented artists aren’t going to be very successful.