Since the dawn of civilization, art has emerged to be an indispensable part of human life. There is an ongoing debate over who can actually produce works of art, ordinary people or innately capable ones. Though some argue that art is within the reach of every human being, I think the creation of good art rests exclusively with endowed people, given the inherent nature of art itself.
Some laypeople base their arguments on the misconception of art. For them, everything expressed in a particular manner (sculpting, writing or drawing) with originality is considered art. If artworks can be produced by every single individual with yearnings, then many people will turn to these forms as a vehicle for self-expression and enhancement of such skills as unbridled imagination and creativity. In this respect, many become self-acclaimed artists, enhancing the public’s exposure to this creative world. This benefit is based mostly on the idea success in art-related fields is not hard to come by. The problem with this view is that they treat the audience as being impressionable, when in fact they are highly demanding. Artworks are produced in varying quality, and for public recognition, one must stand out with unique styles and the hidden messages underlying it. For instance, in Vietnam, short films on Facebook, though meticulously filmed and edited, are not regarded as art as they lack symbolic meanings interwoven by the aptitude of creators. Seemingly, assuming everyone could create art, then this community may well be saturated, causing numerous truly valuable works to slip into oblivion.
Also from some advocates’ perspectives, if art is restricted to the authority of gifted individuals, they can be commercialized. Such a monopolization leads to the ever-increasing emergence of top artists who are usually overconfident and conceited about their ability. Their works tend to flood the market, dominating and even overshadowing other less standout ones. To a certain point, the desire to enjoy artworks can be pricey, costing the audience even a huge sum of money. Well-known international museums, including the Louvre Museum in France or London Museum in England, exemplify this well. For admittance, visitors must pay around $50 as financial support for gallery operators and the creators. That said, in my opinion, given their determination coordinated smoothly with inborn ability, it is within the artists’ rights to receive this money. To create a perfect work, artists have to pool their resources, be it time, finance or exertion. In addition, without realizing the true nature of art, many ordinary people can exploit it unscrupulously. They can use them as a money-making tool, sometimes even for the purpose of deceiving others. Those with actual ability and appreciation for art should hence take control of it to preserve its time-honored values and pre-empt any act of vandalism.
All things considered, while anyone can engage in artistic expression, only a minority can produce works of high artistic value. In conclusion, though many concerns are raised regarding the limited popularity and commercialization of art when it is exclusive to talented hands, they justifiably reflect a temporal stage of social development. When viewed from a broader and more forward-looking perspective, I maintain that the monopolization of art is crucial to protect them from any potential value erosion or market saturation.