We need to talk. Because something broke in the way we think about art. And it is not about AI, it is not about technology. It is about the fact that somewhere along the way we forgot what art actually is.

Art ≠ Autobiography

Let us face it: the cult of the amateur has destroyed a fundamental understanding of art.

Once upon a time it was obvious. A poet wrote about death — no one called an ambulance. A painter depicted a battle scene — no one checked whether he had been a soldier. A composer wrote a requiem — no one assumed he had just lost someone.

There was a lyrical subject. A narrator. A character. A perspective.

  • If I add sad content — it does not mean I am sad
  • If I create a joyful work — it does not mean I am happy
  • If I tell a story about murder — I am not a murderer

This was the ABCs of art. The foundation. The bedrock.

But then came Instagram. TikTok. The era of "authenticity." And suddenly every creator had to be authentic. Real. Genuine. Personal.

Art became therapy. A diary. A selfie.

"What you create is you" — everyone repeats. And this is a fundamental misunderstanding.

No. What I create is not me. It is a work. An artifact. A construct. It may be inspired by my life, but it is not a record of it. I can explore perspectives I do not share. Emotions I do not feel. Worlds I do not inhabit.

This is called imagination. And it used to be the heart of art.

The Cult of the Amateur — How We Flattened Culture

Do not misunderstand me — I have nothing against amateurs. Every master was once an amateur. The democratization of creativity is a good thing.

The problem is that amateur culture has displaced craft culture.

Today what counts is:

  • Authenticity (more important than skill)
  • Relatable content (more important than originality)
  • Personal brand (more important than the work itself)
  • Likes and engagement (more important than value)

Art stopped being about something. It started being about someone.

"And it is not that personal experience cannot be a source of art — of course it can. But when the only criterion of value becomes 'is this authentic,' 'is this real,' 'did the artist truly live through this' — we lose an entire universe of possibilities."

Shakespeare did not have to be a Danish prince to write Hamlet.
Tolkien did not have to walk through Middle-earth to create The Lord of the Rings.
Goya did not have to be mad to paint his Black Paintings.

But today? Today we check the artist's Instagram first, in order to evaluate their work.

Art as a Political Weapon — Chaos on Both Sides

And then there is the second problem: art as a tool in a political game.

On one side we have attacks on contemporary art. "That is not art," "my child could paint that," "art used to be real art." We throw mud at everything that does not look like a Renaissance painting.

On the other side — activist attacks on the classics. Van Gogh doused in soup. Monet under tomatoes. Rembrandt threatened with glue.

And the question is: where is the sense in all of this?

Some reject the contemporary in the name of a tradition they often do not understand. Others attack tradition in the name of goals that have nothing to do with art.

Art has become a battlefield in the culture wars. It is no longer about expression, exploration, beauty, or truth. It is about:

  • Signaling values
  • Demonstrating group belonging
  • Scoring points against opponents
  • Generating outrage

We throw paint on museum walls, but what does it change? We shout "that is not art," but do we offer anything better?

What Happened to Meaning?

Somewhere along the way we lost something fundamental: art has the right to exist for its own sake.

It does not have to be the artist's therapy.
It does not have to be a political manifesto.
It does not have to be an authentic record of someone's life.
It does not have to represent, educate, or save anyone.

It can simply be.

It can explore ideas, emotions, and forms. It can be beautiful, ugly, provocative, or subtle. It can speak about something important or about nothing specific. It can be for everyone or for the few.

But for any of this to work, we must return to the basics:

Separate the Author from the Work

If I write about a murderer, I am not a murderer. If I paint the apocalypse, I am not a prophet.

Stop Measuring Value by Relatable Content

Art does not have to be like a selfie — accessible, understandable, and pleasant for everyone within five seconds.

Remove Politics from the Pedestal

Yes, art can be political. But not every work of art has to be. And a political message does not automatically make something valuable.

Return to Craft

Authenticity without skill is just a loud cry. Beautiful form without content is just decoration. But together? Together it can be something great.

Summary

Hello, people. Wake up.

Art is not an Instagram story. It is not a political slogan. It is not a test of the artist's authenticity.

"Art is a form of expression — yes. But not of one's own identity. It is a space for exploration, experiment, imagination. A place where we can be someone else, see the world differently, feel something we have never experienced."

When we turn it into a competition for the most authentic confession or the loudest political manifesto — we lose what makes it art.

And what is left is only chaos. Attacks from one side, paint on paintings from the other. And meaning? Meaning got lost along the way.

Perhaps it is high time we found it again.