āartā, media, whatever you create you create as a mode of expression first and foremost (which, imo, is why we all have a semi-innate distaste for work that feels derivative, disingenuous, or commerce-oriented claiming to be art.)
i think the arts landscape we find ourselves in (and the postmodernism of it all) incentivizes art that inspires dialogue, that is meant to captivate an audience and ideally a large one in both the fine arts and pop art arenas, and so we often congregate to forms like moving image, and other easily disseminated, easily digestible forms to express what is capable of being expressed through a variety of forms
if no one was there to receive our art we would still express ourselves. people expressed themselves before we had comms tech enabling immediate, mass dissemination. per meagre_graemeās rec, forms with an emphasis on utility such as cuisine, materials work, etc. would certainly be viable and more āoptimalā modes of expression, but writing would not go anywhere. photography would not go anywhere. the means by which people who do not consider themselves āartistsā express themselves and use their creative faculties to capture and romanticize their lives would become the means by which weād all express ourselves in the absence of an audienceā¦ so per taterholeā¦ does the audience even matter?
