Can I get back to you on that?
In related news, my studio has suffered the ravages of a late-night spring cleaning, and now 600% more surface area is exposed. It’s a (belated) Ostara miracle!
I have not read you incorrectly. I have spotted logical inconsistencies in your argument which you refuse to acknowledge, let alone examine.
Therefore, this is my final word on the matter:
As soon as you start drawing boundary lines on what is and is not “true” Art and additionally declare anything to ‘untouchable’ in the pursuit of same (as you did), you have missed the point entirely. Do your research.
Now, because you responded to my response that supposedly demanded a response, I shall grace you with a counter-response.
[ read more - trimmed for brevity, though I recommend reading this before the post below ]
Yay! A well-reasoned response! I was expecting more unfounded cussing - which, to be honest, I *generally* don’t mind (my own language when I am elbow-deep into a project with fiddly fragile pieces gets fairly blue, too), but unprovoked, gendered slurs from strangers on the internet is where I draw the line. And thank you for your apology; that was definitely a classy move.
But since you took the time to respond intelligently, I hope you don’t mind if I keep this going (I love informed discussion). In no particular order:
I don’t mind continuing the discussion but I have a feeling that we will probably still disagree at the end of it all. Please forgive me for not addressing all your comments, but I believe my answer to your last major point will suffice in explaining my stance.
[ … ]
Okay, just to see if I’m reading you correctly: Literature is a form of art, as is music, and ‘visual’ art and etc (I agree with you on this point). Therefore you hold them all to the same standards, regarding what is and isn’t “legitimate” Art.
You also hate money. That’s fascinating and something I could address, but I will leave it alone for now.
We’ll just talk about the abstract idea of “work for hire” - you seem to think that any work done for the express purposes of making money is apparently not Art.
So. LOGICALLY, this means that the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa, the Pieta, almost anything by Alphonse Mucha or Norman Rockwell, any art commissioned for a public space… are not Art. But an obscene doodle in a bathroom stall is.
And IF we are holding Literature to the same standards (that is, “Art is not something made for profit”), then I should be free to cut up Shakespeare, Dickens, Poe, TS Eliot, Hemmingway, Arthur Conan Doyle, and, according to an English grad student and teacher friend of mine, pretty much “any male author pre-1900” - oh right, AND the Fairy Tale book I cut up for Rapunzel, since I’m sure the author of that got paid, too.
Oh, and by the way, feel free to cut up that Killers CD, since I’m positive that it wasn’t recorded in exchange for sunshine and rainbows.
The ideal that “Art is only made for the love of Art” is erroneous and naive at best, and outright cruel at worst.
“Cruel” because it bars anyone who wants to be a “real” Artist from earning money with their talent to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves (and possibly their families). Implying that ‘True Artists’ don’t make money from their Art also implies that only the rich should be allowed to make art, or else that artists born poor are obligated suffer and die horribly in the gutter to be considered ‘True Artists.’
Idealism is all very well and good, but: