[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
art or not
Kelvin wrote:
>I tend to disagree. I think if something is created with
>the reaction of others in mind, it ceases to be art and
>has taken the first step to being a marketing ploy at best
>and propoganda at worst.
I tend to agree *and* disagree.
I think if something is created with the SOLE or PRIMARY
reaction of others in mind, it ceases to be art and has
taken the first step to being a marketing ploy at best
and propaganda at worst.
But I don't think something would cease to be art if the
artist thought, "I wonder how this will be received?"
For the most part, the intention of art is to be shared.
So, IMO, there has to be some thought in the artist's
mind as to what the reaction of others will be. Wondering
what the reaction of others doesn't necessarily compromise
the art- as long as doing what we're doing isn't changed
by what our preconceived notions of "acceptable" and "not
acceptable" are.
Artists are like everyone else. They need food, clothes,
roof over their heads. I can't imagine someone becoming
an artist solely for the purpose of art. They want to
make a living, too. I don't see anything wrong with this.
However, if the artist goes back into the studio (music,
painting, whatever) because of a failed attempt to reach
others and to try to create something that people will like
better than their prior attempt, then yes- it starts becoming
propaganda and marketing.
But even still, there's some good "marketing-art" out there.
Case in point, new Collective Soul coming out in a week and
a half. Ed Roland knows how to write a damn good pop song. :)
Dan
sparks - interior design
+- Dan Temmesfeld - dantemm(at)netzero(dot)net -+
_Galactic Cowboys - http://www.dlm.net/gc/ _
wish i could whisper how much i need you
+- after tomorrow i might forget to (kingsx) -+
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/