 | | Re: Extropianism
|
| They compromised their artistic integrity for $$$. I think *they* would perceive themselves as "artists", and not merely capitalists. An artist works to express him/herself, not to make money (starving artist idea). The more an artist produces what (...) (25 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Extropianism
|
| (...) On the other hand, some artists create art to evoke particular responses from their audience. If the desired response isn't forthcoming, it's a poor artist that blames the audience. A good artist will revise the piece until it works as (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Extropianism
|
| (...) Is it possible to evoke *a* particular response? Unless the response you want is for people to give you money for your work. (...) A good artist IMHO works independently of his audience. Pop artists might be a different story. -John (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Extropianism
|
| (...) Well, suppose you wanted to make an anti-war movie, and the test audience came out of the theater laughing and playing mock war. Would you conclude that you had done something wrong, or that the audience was just stupid and incapable of (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Extropianism
|
| John Neal wrote in message <37BF0506.AE7F8075@u...st.net>... (...) The (...) like (...) I guess there is an art in getting rich, too. George Lucas seems to have it down pat. If the guy wants to make money (most people in Hollywood (or anywhere else) (...) (25 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
