For instance, imagine a field with only one practitioner. Is that person mediocre or excellent? Both, really. I'll leave the proof as an exercise for the reader.
1. There are too many artists despite the limited market and many people's lack of talent
True, and it's not just limited to art too. Sports has much the same issue here; easy to get into, a dream career for millions (or billions) of people and an opportunity that most won't be able to achieve simply because they're not talented enough.
Journalism and media is another sort of example here, since it's got a very large audience of wannabes, is filled with people who don't have the talent to make it... and unlike sports and art pays like crap. This is especially true when it comes to tech, gaming, sports or celebrity journalism.
2. Schools pushing the 'everyone gets a prize' narrative was responsible for this.
Not sure I'd agree with this one. I'd say it's much like it always was, popular because:
A. It's trendy and you're 'cool' if you succeed B. In many of these fields, the money for the very small percentage at the top is incredibly good C. Many people enjoy these things (creating art, writing, playing sports) and wish they were what they did in their main career D. For a growing percentage of the population, this stuff is going to be their only practical chance of making a decent living. Automation + globalisation and outsourcing + changing company structures means that at some point, I suspect it'll be either 'get a very specialist job with a high barrier to entry' or 'basically win the lottery' if you want a middle to upper class income. E. People think the work is easy F. It seemingly avoids many of the stresses of everyday life, like commuting, open offices, customers/clients, etc
3. Professional associations explain why some fields make more money
Kind of true, though as many Hacker News readers know, software engineers/web developers/programmers make pretty good money too, and that has no barrier to entry. Same with marketers to be honest.
4. Identity politics is used as a marketing/branding strategy
Maybe? If so however, it's not a very good one. A quick look at the various TV shows, films, comic books, games and other media trying to sell themselves on 'progressive' politics shows that the majority have bombed hard. By virtue of simple demographics, a company or publishing house that does this is probably on the road to irrelevance/bankruptcy.
Other than that, well it can seemingly be boiled down to 'people who spend their life complaining about things on social media and hoping to become an artist should probably get a normal job'. Which is a fair point I guess. Just seems like one that's buried under a bunch of potentially decent but disconnected other ones.
1) Art criticism probably plays a role because it helps define art fashion - e.g. when realistic painting gave way to abstract art, it opened the door to people making millions painting triangles (after 37 years of study) and squiggly lines.
2) G. Calling yourself an "artist" probably works as a pick-up line in more bohemian parts of the West.
3) Supply and demand.
4) I think identity politics succeeds in helping artists and customers find niches. So far it hasn't translated into huge successes in popular culture, probably because marketers try to spin such things as originality. Han Solo is a pansexual? Big deal, Captain Kirk slept with a green alien in 1967.
