Subject:
|
Re: Extropianism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Aug 1999 00:56:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2379 times
|
| |
|
|
John Neal wrote:
>
> They compromised their artistic integrity for $$$. I think *they* would
> perceive themselves as "artists", and not merely capitalists. An artist
> works to express him/herself, not to make money (starving artist idea). The
> more an artist produces what the people want, the more they are selling out
> and the more pablum they produce. They should get rich *because* people like
> their art, not make art people like *to* get rich. Big difference.
On the other hand, some artists create art to evoke particular responses
from their audience. If the desired response isn't forthcoming, it's a
poor artist that blames the audience. A good artist will revise the
piece
until it works as intended.
--
Steve Jacquot
sj5w@virginia.edu
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Extropianism
|
| (...) Is it possible to evoke *a* particular response? Unless the response you want is for people to give you money for your work. (...) A good artist IMHO works independently of his audience. Pop artists might be a different story. -John (...) (27 years ago, 22-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Extropianism
|
| They compromised their artistic integrity for $$$. 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 (...) (27 years ago, 21-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
