Why do some people say that painting is a niche art?

It should be said that with the continuous progress of society, as people's demand for cultural life continues to grow, as people's appreciation level continues to improve, as more and more people like painting and photography, The "popular" characteristics of photography and painting are becoming more and more obvious, and photography and painting are becoming more and more like "popular art".

But I don’t think this means that painting and photography are low-end arts. On the contrary, photography and painting will always be high-end arts no matter when they come. This is determined by the inherent quality of photography and painting and the difficulty of mastering them skillfully. For example, music as an art has a higher audience than photography and painting. Almost everyone is listening to music and everyone can appreciate music. But there are still very few people who can become musicians, composers, and singers. No one would think that music is a low-end art just because so many people know music and can sing, right?

I don’t dabble much in painting. But in the field of painting the problem is the same. Painting is for the masses, but the art of painting is niche. In fact, anything in the realm of pure art is niche. And it's extremely niche. It's impossible for most people to understand. Most of the works of art that we generally recognize are actually “sugar water”. That is to say, works of little value.

Although the threshold for painting is much higher than that for photography. It is a fact that most people have difficulty even drawing an accurate shape. But it doesn’t mean that the paintings drawn by those who are trained in painting must be works of art. Even if the painting is very beautiful. Probably the vast majority of these works are commercial paintings.