Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe  To use your analogy when a painter finishes his "masterpiece" he may think it is GREAT! but until someone else offers to purchase it or writes a favorable review of the art it is still his or her opinion and nothing more.
To many "artists" today work in a vacuum and don't seek the advice or consul of others. Collaboration is the name of the game if you want your material to be of interest to more than yourself. |
Beethoven worked in a "vacuum," and so did Van Gogh.
Are you serious when you say that a work of art has no value unless money changes hands, or someone writes something favorable about it? How can that be? It doesn't change in any way just because someone pays to listen to it or writes about it.
A work of art simply exists. If someone notices it and wants to throw money at it or write about it, that's fine. It may remain completely obscure, or become hugely famous. That's incidental, and after the fact. Fame or money won't improve art in any way.
You might say something has musical value, and I might think it's comically bad. Or the reverse could be true, and most likely is. I might point at a passage in Mozart's Requiem, or Miles Davis' Footprints, or one of Pete Seeger's songs, and say that it's flat out brilliant. But is it? Me and 100,000 other people might spend our hard earned money going to a concert by the new band XYZ. But that doesn't mean they're musically any good. They might be making a lot of money, but so what? If I sell a lot of records and make a lot of money and buy a lot of stuff, does that mean my music has artistic value, and is no longer just an opinion?
The value of art will always remain subjective, and be people's opinions, no matter how many or how few people share those opinions. Art should never be created with any material objective in mind, or pander after the latest fashion. It should able to stand on it's own, without needing to "fit in" or be part of some current trend.
Of course, these are all just my opinions...