This week I saw a short form video (boooo) on Instagram where an art critic accused Ed Sheeran of “colonising the whole of visual arts” by painting some shit pictures. Now, I am not a fan of Ed Sheeran. I don’t like his music, I don’t like his paintings, I don’t like his whole vibe. For me he is the poster child of beige, insipid, nothing-music and like many of us I have been feeling strangely vindicated as my previously subjective distaste for him is cemented by his objective moral failings.
That said, I will defend with my last breath his right to throw paint on a canvas if he wants. If you are human, if you have a ball of electric meat between your ears, go and create whatever the fuck you want. Said art critic was within their right to dislike Ed’s work but I find the assertion that they know for certain the intention behind it snobbery in the extreme. Obviously rich idiots will pay a lot of money for any piece which someone as famous as Ed Sheeran has painted regardless of its quality and while that may not be fair, is that really the audience any self-respecting artist would want? And is it Ed’s fault?
The argument here is that people known in one field should stay in their lane and (as someone who makes music and visual art maybe I’m biased here) I think that’s horseshit. Take David Lynch, who considered himself a painter before all else. If he had stayed in his lane we wouldn’t have Twin Peaks or Blue Velvet. Am I really comparing David Lynch with Ed Sheeran? Obviously, in my opinion, one is a genius while the other is a human shaped talent-vacuum. But, as much as we might not want to hear it, talent is subjective. As humans I believe we should grab whatever opportunity we have to make what we can. And if we’re not happy with how those opportunities are distributed then perhaps that’s what we should be angry about. Not the guy with the paintbrush.
