/draw/ - Original Art

I'm sure they're aware that most artists are not bourgeoisie. They're mocking a specific type of artist: the rich kids that go to fancy schools and will never have to worry about making a living as an artist.

You)

>>1833
True, but from my point of view as a 3rd worlder absolute majority (70-80%) of Western graduates of art schools are the rich kids no matter their social class. Why? Simply because you will never make a living out of it, you waste precious resources by focusing on fields where you don't have major competitive advantage. Purely from the economic point of view the 1st worlders pursuing art degrees are consuming large resources just to produce goods that could be produced by a random Philippino for tenth of the Western price. When a 1st worlder gradutes from his art school and fails to sustain himself through art, it simply outs him as parasite leeching off public resources and studying shit that didn't help him to contribute to society.

>>1836
brb killing myself

Artists typically would be considered petty bourgeois if they sell their own pieces themselves and art subsidized through some shady company. Art in the "Art world" Is incredibly bourgeois and relies on speculation to inflate the value of their pieces to astronomical levels.

>>1838
aren't subsidized*

a lot of "artists" are massive private property cucks, especially the freelancers and whatnot

Do freelancers own their means of production?

>>1838
>Artists typically would be considered petty bourgeois if they sell their own pieces themselves
I'm not so sure about that, what they do is artisanal production and technically what they sell is not a capitalist commodity, because it's not sold in a market. Usually artists sell their goods via some sort of arrangement with a gallery or a auction house , which typically functions as some type of closed society. If you look at the means of production that "free artists" use, it looks more like something from a previous mode of production.

>>1845
artisans are literally petty bourgeois. it doesn't need to be sold in a market, in fact it's just a more protectionist form of private property

>>1844
They own the means of labor (such as the tools).

>>1836
I mean that could be said for litterally any profession.

Also I would like to see filepinos try and write Dutch language literature but whatever.

>>1836
From my point of view as a 3rd worlder anyone bothering to learn a bit of drawing on their own and dedicates most of their time to drawing porn will have a fairly easy life, as long as they sell their art in dollars.

leftypol is stuck in the 19th century and doesnt understand the terms they use not even in a context from back then episode 49,251

>>1908
The amount of artists failing to earn a living in 1st world seems to be way higher than the amount of doctors/lawyers/engineers and other specialists with higher education. Art degree is fairly useless and won't guarantee employment.
>>1909
That's only if you are from a poor country. Artists from rich countries need to earn $2000-4000 a month just to live on par with local unskilled labour. To earn this much you need to be a professional with thousands of followers, which means you belong to top 5% of all artists. Very few artists achieve such income, I use 4chan's /ic/ as an evidence.

It's a pedantic misuse of class analysis. The question should be "Why aren't more artists doing agiprop?"