Why So Serious?

Ive been thinking about the seriousness of art…

 I asked AI why is art so serious? It said this.

Art can sometimes feel very serious because it often deals with deep emotions, complex ideas, and the human experience. It's a way for people to express things that might be hard to put into words or communicate through other means. Many artists take it seriously because they see it as a form of self-expression, social commentary, or as a way to connect with others on a meaningful level.

As an artist, I think that’s an Ok definition. I take what I do seriously, but there is something around my art making and social practice that I’m trying to understand better. So, I then asked the question ‘Why does the art world see itself as serious?’

This is what it said:

The art world tends to see itself as serious for a few reasons that stem from its historical, cultural, and social roots. Here’s a deeper look into why that is:

 Cultural and Intellectual Legacy: For centuries, art has been intertwined with philosophy, politics, and religion. Great art was often viewed as a reflection of the "higher" intellectual or spiritual pursuits of society. It was not just about aesthetic pleasure, but about conveying profound ideas, challenging societal norms, or commenting on the human condition. Because of this legacy, there's an inherent seriousness that gets carried through generations.

Art as a Medium for Change: Many works of art have historically been used as powerful tools for social and political change. From Picasso’s Guernica to the works of the Harlem Renaissance, art has been a medium for expressing resistance, activism, and revolutionary thought. This gives art an air of importance and responsibility, as it’s often seen as more than just decoration or entertainment—it's seen as a catalyst for change.

Institutional Power and Gatekeeping: The art world has long been governed by powerful institutions like museums, galleries, auction houses, and critics, which have historically controlled what is seen as "important" or "valuable" art. These institutions tend to uphold a certain standard of seriousness because they need to maintain credibility and authority. There’s often an expectation that to be considered legitimate, art has to conform to certain highbrow or academic standards.

Monetary Value: The financial stakes in the art world can be huge, especially when it comes to blue-chip artists, rare works, or auction sales. Art can fetch millions, and with that kind of value comes a level of seriousness. The discussion around art becomes less about pure enjoyment and more about investment, legacy, and exclusivity, which feeds into the idea that art is a serious endeavour.

Philosophical Depth: Art isn’t just about how something looks—it’s often about what it means. Artists use their work to explore complex ideas like identity, mortality, the nature of existence, or societal issues. Because of this, art becomes a platform for deep philosophical and intellectual inquiry, which can make the art world appear more serious.

The Role of the Artist: Many artists view themselves as visionaries or cultural commentators, and because of this self-perception, their work is often presented with gravitas. Art, for many artists, is a way to share something deeply personal, conceptual, or emotionally intense. This contributes to the art world’s serious tone, as art becomes a vehicle for self-expression that transcends simple aesthetics.

That’s a whole lot of serious!! And it’s interesting how it put the role of the artist at the bottom of the information, suggesting, that contrary to the actual name ‘The Art World’, the artist role is not the main part.

So, then I asked myself the question, how does this apply to working in the community with normal people? I would just like to clarify that when I use the word normal or normalcy, I mean the regular pattern of living in the West, and that people work or operate within that construct. I’m not saying that this is a good or worthy state.  And I’m not discussing the right or wrongs of conformity to this condition of living - I feel that is a different discussion.

With that clarification, there is a dusk and a dawn and there is stuff in-between and a lot of us do similar things in that space. And we may do whatever that is for 40 years, and then we may retire. If we live like this, the only time we think about art is when we look back at our life in retirement and say, ‘I’ve always wanted to paint a landscape’. From my lived experience, that's what normalcy is, it will be different for some people, but most people who get on the great economic treadmill behave like this. Their interaction with art is very limited and the time they dedicate to ‘working’ takes most of their waking energy. Quite simply, this system of living does not facilitate the creative expression of individuals. Even schools - who have a statutory obligation to teach art to everyone who learns the national curriculum, do it very loosely. I have a book from 1942 saying art needs to be taught better in schools, this is not a new issue. The structure we live in doesn’t have creativity at its core, but the economy, however, is its big pulsating heart.

You could ask, why don’t our cultural institutions and art galleries interact with schools? They do, but not all schools. They don’t play an active role in the classroom to help teach art and support undertrained and hesitant teachers. (Trainee teachers have about five minutes art training at university.) Usually, when schools visit, galleries charge for their guided time if the schools visits longer than an hour or so. They get funding to engage with communities, but this engagement is usually engineered around their current exhibitions. But what about the role of artists? It depends on how the artist choses to work. It takes a lot of time and energy to work in the community, it’s not always funded, and some artists have day jobs too.

Formal education aside, the internet has made a big difference to people access art making information. There are lots of online videos and ideas to help people be artistic. Sometimes however, these videos are only meant to be watched and not followed, because If I were to follow the steps in these videos, I would find parts of the process missing…. sometimes because of data limits, sometimes because people don’t want to share everything. I must be honest, when I’m in a funk, I find watching someone varnish their artwork really satisfying. I recently saw an online post of a successful artist looking at the drawings of Henry Moore. She mentioned that the marks he made in his drawings were exquisite, and it got me thinking about the mark making of normal people.

A drawing by Devon of a tree drawn with bamboo and ink.

I just want to make another disclaimer - I’m certainly not comparing Henry Moore’s incredible drawing to a ‘one off’ incredible picture by Joe Bloggs. But there's an integrity to the momentary exchange, between normal people and the possibilities of what they can do. There is something special in the magic of the elements of art in a vulnerable hand. I have witnessed a sophistication in the marks made by a person with dementia, and there is a defiant freedom in the art making of children. This is powerful and valuable, and its worthy of the dedicated investment of time and energy that makes good things happen. We need to be serious about that. We need to be serious about facilitating these exchanges with everybody, because it makes a difference to people.

It’s made a difference to me and how I feel about the space I occupy. Maybe, people could be supported in their own creative activity and how it could exist within the regular patterns of their own lives. I’ve noticed many people like to draw nature - why is that? I’m pretty sure they don't want to sit and draw what they do for a job. They want to draw how they feel when they're not doing that. They want to capture how it feels to walk in a green space with the birds singing and the clouds above their head. Maybe that makes them feel like they're connected to something outside of the economic framework.

I’m glad I’ve taken the time to write this; it’s made me feel a little clearer about things. We are not living in Victorian Britain anymore. The cultural and intellectual legacy of art galleries is a bit shaky. We live in an unpredictable age of uncertainty, where governing systems peddle a superficial and artificial top-down narrative. The Art World is supported by this system. But it can’t stay the same, even famous artists are making a stand against cultural institutions who accept questionable donations. In 2019 artist Nan Golding threatened to boycott the National Portrait Gallery if they accepted money (£1,000,000) from the Sackler family. (They make billions from the sale of the prescription opioid OxyContin) (Artforum, 2019) This is really serious stuff! And as far as institutional gatekeeping and market value goes, there was a 12% global decline in art sales in 2024. (Artforum, 2025) And the UK government and local councils have slashed arts budgets all over the country. (McGiven, 2023) Again, this is very serious, and it will affect how I fund the work I do as a community artist.  

 Let me finish by asking AI what it thinks about ‘if everyone was an artist, how would that affect the art world?’ Here is the response:

If everyone were an artist, the art world would undergo some fascinating transformations, both in terms of creation and appreciation.

Democratization of Art: Art would become more inclusive, as people from all walks of life would have the opportunity to express themselves creatively. There would be less distinction between "professional" and "amateur" artists, leading to a broader range of styles, techniques, and interpretations. Art would likely lose its elitist connotations, becoming a more universal language of expression.

Increased Variety and Diversity: With everyone participating, the diversity of artistic expression would skyrocket. You’d see an explosion of unique and personal perspectives, styles, and mediums. Art would no longer be confined to traditional categories, and it might even evolve into new forms we haven't yet imagined.

Cultural Shifts in Value: With an overabundance of art, society might start to rethink what constitutes "valuable" art. Instead of focusing solely on rarity, celebrity, or the financial worth of a piece, people might shift toward valuing art for its emotional resonance, social commentary, or cultural significance. This could lead to a more egalitarian art market.

Technology’s Role: Advances in technology, especially AI and digital media, might also play a larger role in making art more accessible. Tools could empower anyone to create without needing extensive training or physical materials. The line between "artist" and "non-artist" could blur even more with technology that democratizes creation.

Art as a Way of Life: If everyone created art, it might no longer be just a career or hobby but an essential part of human existence. People might find new ways to incorporate art into their everyday lives, creating meaning and beauty in their daily routines, spaces, and interactions. It could foster a society more focused on creativity and emotional expression.

Over-saturation of Art: On the flip side, the sheer volume of art could lead to an over-saturation of the art world. With everyone creating art, it might become harder for individual works to stand out. The value of art might shift away from uniqueness and towards how it resonates with viewers or the context in which it is created.

New Forms of Collaboration and Interaction: Art could become more collaborative. Since everyone would be creating, new forms of community-driven, collaborative art projects might emerge. Instead of just an individual process, art could become a shared, collective experience that spans cultures and communities.

 Overall, if everyone were an artist, it would transform not just the art world, but potentially society itself—shifting our focus from traditional notions of "masterpieces" to a more inclusive and diverse artistic experience.

What do you think—would that make art feel more meaningful, or less special?