Is Art Only For Rich and Affluent People

[Nomad]

Since each artwork, whether it is a sculpture or a painting, is unique and artist spends great deal of time to imagine and bring imaginations to physical forum, art always has a high price tag. Since art is expensive, people with lower income cannot afford to buy it. So, this brings into the conclusion that art is only for rich and affluent people. What do you think?

 

[Urvashi]

I see your point, and it's true that high-end art can be financially exclusive. However, I believe art is much broader than the market value of a painting or sculpture. Many forms of art like street art, photography, digital art, and performances are more accessible to people across different income levels. Art doesn't have to be expensive to be impactful or appreciated. The rich may have access to exclusive art markets, but creativity and artistic expression belong to everyone.

 

[Niyi Briggs]

From the standpoint of the society that I live in, arts is for the rich. As a person, the fee arts I have has been birthday gifts and so on. I have never bought arts in my entire life before. I agree that arts is for the rich.

 

[Deep]

Since each artwork, whether it is a sculpture or a painting, is unique and artist spends great deal of time to imagine and bring imaginations to physical forum, art always has a high price tag. Since art is expensive, people with lower income cannot afford to buy it. So, this brings into the conclusion that art is only for rich and affluent people. What do you think?

Art isn't just for the rich. Creativity is free to experience, appreciate, and create. Beauty exists beyond price tags.

 

[Nomad]

Art isn't just for the rich. Creativity is free to experience, appreciate, and create. Beauty exists beyond price tags.

True but only rich people can buy art pieces, right?