It’s not enough that you paint it. It must achieve critical acclaim, and you need to sell it for an obscene amount of money. Let’s say that you have to rely on it for your first house payment.
If they’re so financially motivated, I’m sure they’d much rather get “real” jobs and have a guaranteed source of income, rather than depending on some art buyer being gullible enough to buy something that they (the arist/s) know is crap.
That’s just silly. Any artist that is financially motivated doesn’t stay an artist for long. You do it for the love, or you don’t do it at all. People like Ansel Adams, Thomas Kincaid, and the little girl in the OP are exceptions, not the rule.
No, no I don’t. That wasn’t a condition initially set forth in Yookaroo’s so-called ‘challenge’, and I do not accept it at this time. If I were to take up art for monetary gain in that fashion I’d be a hypocrite - and I refuse to become a hypocrite for your satisfaction.
Additionally, I never claimed that all such works were financially successful. So your addendum is silly.
I didn’t say they were motivated by money for every painting they produce, nor that this applied to all artists. Merely that a large number of these Easy-Bake Abstracts are produced for financial reasons.
So what’s the challenge, then? That you can draw a square? That wouldn’t do much to support your position.
Ask Yookaroo. He/she’s the one that thought it up. shrug
Nope. Dogs Playing Poker is produced for financial reasons. Velvet Elvis is produced for financial reasons. Abstract art almost never sells. It’s the rare piece that even gets noticed.
These days, I bet that’s true. Was it a different story for the first 10 years of the movement?
No one ever said artists were **good ** at making money. 
And I repeat: If the majority of artists are financially motivated, and they can’t make money from their art, why are they still in the business instead of getting “real” jobs?
I’m betting it was far worse during the early days.
So let me get this straight. Artists do trendy simple things to make money. Which they never do. Because they’re not good at it. But that’s why they do it. Is that what you’re saying?
And don’t back out of my challenge with the excuse that you have scruples. You’re belied by your own dishonesty right there.
I’ll have to speculate wildly, as I do not understand the psychology of an artist. Optimism? Dogged persistence? Naivete? Laziness? Apathy?
I have a cousin who’s a musician. Pretty decent piano player - never heard any of his original compositions, though. He’s… 38? The last I heard he was living in a tent in California, paying some small trickle of rent to the landowner, taking jobs in restaurants and as a baby-sitter to make ends meet. Do I think he’s still a musician because he has some deep-down desire to create in his soul? Well, that might account for a tiny piece of it - but, you see, I know the man. He’s spoiled, lazy, a hypochrondriac, and several other unflattering things.
He’s the only professional musician I know well at all.
Some artists do trendy things to make money. Which works sometimes. But the financial acumen of the general artist population is such that they continue to follow trends that are no longer financially viable.
And I’m quite scrupled. If you don’t think I am - you’re wrong. I really can’t help you prove it to yourself, but you are.
That’s all you’ve been doing throughout this entire goddamn thread.
You’re talking out of your ass, and you know it. So do we.
If that’s what you truly believe, then why are you even bothering to address me? I believe there’s a difference between expression of opinions and speculation, but hey - knock yourself out if you want to shuffle on to more worthwhile discussions.
Then CG is in the wrong thread. 
I could ask you the same question, given your continual insistence that you have formed your opinions and will not change them regardless of what anyone says.
I have participated in this thread thus because I am an artist, and though I am not a fine artist, I respect the arts and would like to see others respect and appreciate them for what they are. And because I thought, up until now, that there might be a slim chance of persuading you to acknowledge that your own narrow viewpoint might not be the be-all end-all of the value of abstract art.
No more. I’m done.
Well, you know me. I write music that is the equivelant of red squares. I suppose if I wanted to make money, I could write stuff that is the equivelant of Velvet Elvis. But I don’t. I won’t. I’d rather have artistic merit. I know I won’t make any money this way (in fact, I’ve made maybe $1000 in my entire life through music). But I do it anyway, for the love of it. Who am I supposed to be duping, again?
I think I prefer the elephant’s work, but it is close.
Wow, your question at the end would be biting and insightful if I’d ever said all artists create for monetary gain.