what makes an art piece "iconic"?
amount of exposure and uniqueness
appeal to the masses and ease of access
>>7719589Age. Take this piece of the Mona Lisa. It's a basic portrait of a noble lady, but because such skill was rare and the artist behind it was a famous intellectual, this became an iconic painting everyone knows about. Nowadays there's art everywhere online, many of them blows tons of historical paintings out of the water, but none of them will really stand out in the future (if they even survive) cause such things are no longer rare and restricted to the intellectuals.
>>7719589It needs to be tied to something tangible and from the real world, it had to be interacted with people at some point to get the exposure and spread that any well known art piece gets.Like take Dr. Suess, hes known widely for his books that reached the masses and went through reprints, cartoons, movies, etc. But his actual solo art pieces are hardly known by the public despite them not being some sort of secret, they are easily accessible to look at online, but the masses havent interacted or engaged with em so they arent iconic.And despite what this faggot says >>7721004the actual reason why the Mona Lisa is well known in comparison to the other artworks by the same guy is cause people tried to steal t, that made headlines, and that spread the Mona Lisa into the public conscious(plus artists are forced to listen about it in art history so those forced lectures end up seeping into the art those people make even if its solely for a gag) Thats why most actual popular art right now is comic shit or video game crap and what have you, cause that shit ends up spreading far and wide and the people get to decide what they want to be iconic or not. People choose that
Being the first to be seen doing something different, taking a stance either opposed to current norms, or pushing them even further, so that audiences look for something similar after seeing it, when there is little like it to be found, and other artists have to respond to it in their own work. The iconic work might not be the first to push these boundaries, but it is the first one to be noticed doing so. But it's on viewers and other artists to respond to it, whether positively or negatively, that will make it an icon.
>>7719589It's random, basically.
>>7721004mona lisa is famous because it was stolen and it sorta just snowballed in its mystiquewhen something becomes famous and doesn't have much backstory to it people start building their own narratives around it"why was she painted? why is she only half smiling? was da vinci painting himself as a woman?"shit like that tv shows will also keep talking about it because its already familiar to people, making it even more famous
>>7721023>Thats why most actual popular art right now is comic shit or video game crap and what have you, cause that shit ends up spreading far and wide and the people get to decide what they want to be iconic or not. People choose thatyoure high on your own farts if you believe that old myths or religions are better fiction just because they came before or were the first. if it cant stand the test of time, it wasnt meant to be. and as an artist its your job to keep them alive in new forms and tellings. the people will eat any shit up, as proven again and again, its up to you and me to feed them the good shit.
>>7721023>>7721119Ok you guys are right the Mona Lisa is famous mostly due to the heist, but that doesn't change the fact that older art is "iconic" due to the rarity of the skill at the time and the fact that these artists were usually apart of the elite class. Take this modern artwork created by 1dontknows, a highly detailed work that combines surrealism with neoclassical style. It's insanely creative and skilled piece of art. But at the end of the day, this is just one of millions out there made by another internet artist with a pseudonym. Despite the effort into the work, such piece isn't gonna become "iconic" in popular imagination the same way we see with paintings like The Course of Empire.
>>7722032Their twitter bio says they're a collage artist. It's creative, in it's broad concept as an image, but collage has never been really popular. And I can't say it's all that unlike other photo manipulations that make a classical work into something surreal or uncanny. It doesn't challenge or push further any standards currently held in popular or fine art.
>>7721126Bro I literally didnt say any of that shit I just like cussing on anonymous image boards ON THE INTERNET, I literally just said people choose whats iconic or not. If your too autistic to handle curse words I suggest reddit to post your opinions
>>7722032what about all the art from the past you didn't see? i don't think you appreciate how many artists existalso this art sucks because its a cheap premise, and clearly just someone playing with photoshop so who gives a shit
>>7719589>It's popular and/or infamous.Picrel's a controversial piece of digital art that pissed off a lot of people on Xitter, it went viral in 2023.Khyleri got so much shit for it by normies, and it's probably the only piece of art that he deleted, it's mainstream and youtubers covered the controversy, even those outside the anime fandom, it's his most iconic piece of art by a mile and you can only find it on archive websites, boorus.Remember the banana on the wall? That pissed off a lot of non art types.
>>7722947> PicrelWhat does it suppose to mean?
>>7722982you are supposed to think it's a wholesome picture of a kid not wanting to separate from her mother on the first day of school, until you realize the background is a concentration camp. Most of his humor is basically that juxtaposition between wholesome and horrible.
Who draws it.
>>7719589Any art of Zeus is automatically iconic
>>7724027soul