Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Jan 2000 03:15:43 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@{stopspammers}novera.com
|
Viewed:
|
2229 times
|
| |
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote:
> The idea that an artist must "starve" to produce "better" art is
> more than a little questionable.
I certainly question it. Fortunately it's not what I've been saying.
What I have an issue with is rather the artist who is not willing to
suffer, but instead feels the world owes him funding as his due, for
deigning to have decided to be an artist.
No one should be judged on whether they suffered before producing art,
but I by gosh am going to judge on whether they were willing to if they
needed to. If they weren't, there isn't much there that needs saying by
that particular artist.
And I, unlike you, do not see velvet Elvis paintings as arguments for
public funding, merely as arguments for a market that can provide both
that and more sublime things. A lot of public funded art is more like a
velvet Elvis than it is like a Monet, and THAT's my biggest beef of all.
I happen to like velvet paintings, pink flamingoes AND Monets, each in
their proper place.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Interestingly, that's a case of your almighty market defining what art is meritorious. When we get a black-velvet Rembrandt analogue, I'll concede it as a good development--until then, I'm firmly in the corner of mixed-source funding. The (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
