Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 04:22:20 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@!NoSpam!uswest.net
|
Viewed:
|
1851 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:35:57 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
> wrote:
>
> > If an artist cannot afford to finance his own work, and cannot find a
> > patron willing to donate funds, perhaps that artist's work is not worthy
> > of further consideration. The market's never wrong.
>
> Yes, Van Gogh was such a bad artist.
Van Gogh *was* bankrolled by his brother Theo. It just took a little time
for the market to appreciate Vincent as well;-)
-John
>
>
> Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) And thank goodness he WASN'T state funded. Free money spoils people. If you don't want to suffer a bit for your art, you're not much of an artist, now are you? Note, that's a utilitarian argument against state funding... the art it produces is (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
