Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] wrote

5

snack wrote

absolutely! that's a good point you're making. I haven't given this a lot of thought regarding contemporary artists, but if you look into the past you'll notice that (almost) all authors, philosophers etc were financially privileged, aristocratic or wealthy in some other way. (besides being white dudes)

and you see this as well in terms like 'proletarian literature' or 'working class writers' or when art historians call it 'art brut / naive art / outsider art' when referring to art from institutionalized people.

why is there a need for such a label? because it's rare that poor people can afford the time and resources it takes to become an artist, writer, whatever.

5

Hibiscus_Syrup OP wrote

Reminds me of a Stephen Jay Gould quote in relation to this:

“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”

4