$60K Script, composition or painting?
Asbestos Jeff
$60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
M.C.
sp...@miholer.com (Asbestos Jeff) wrote:
> I am artistic and I would like $60,000. Would it be easiest to write a
> $60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
The Painting. No contest.
Michael
M
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>I am artistic and I would like $60,000. Would it be easiest to write a
>$60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
None of the above, but have you considered origami? '-)
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
wrote:
>M.C. wrote:
>
>> In article <958810b2.04070...@posting.google.com>,
>> sp...@miholer.com (Asbestos Jeff) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I am artistic and I would like $60,000. Would it be easiest to write a
>>>$60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
>>
>>
>> The Painting. No contest.
>
>
>KInda agree, if only because it takes less physical time of the three.
>
>M
>
>
Well, that depends entirely on whether you're talking Sistine Chapel
or Jackson Pollock.
M.C.
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)"
<otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> The Painting. No contest.
> >
> >
> >KInda agree, if only because it takes less physical time of the three.
> >
> >M
> >
> >
>
> Well, that depends entirely on whether you're talking Sistine Chapel
> or Jackson Pollock.
I'm talking making a quick 60 thou in the contemporary art market. Slap
on three colors of acrylic and call it an installation... shouldn't take
more than an hour and about $20 in raw materials.
pinknebulous
"Asbestos Jeff" <sp...@miholer.com> wrote in message
news:958810b2.04070...@posting.google.com...
> I am artistic and I would like $60,000. Would it be easiest to write a
> $60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
Paint. Undress and roll around in the paint until you're completely covered
in color, then press your body against the canvas and leave a good
impression. Repeat this process at least twice. I don't know if it will make
you $60K, but if you carefully coordinate colors, you may succeed in
creating an erotic piece of $500.00 "sofa" art. Not a bad sum of money for
an hour of work.
pink
Intangible
Do the $20 painting and screw a rich widow.
intangible
"Asbestos Jeff" <sp...@miholer.com> wrote in message
news:958810b2.04070...@posting.google.com...
ah3133
> I am artistic and I would like $60,000. Would it be easiest to write a
> $60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
do they actually have to be worth $60,000? could i just slap
fingerpaint on some looseleaf paper, and get paid $60,000, or does it
have to be a good painting?
Michael
Yeah, yeah. So much for actually making it. Selling it takes real talent
;-)
Michael
pinknebulous wrote:
Hey, I like this one!
M
Alan Brooks
"ah3133" writes:
> (Asbestos Jeff) wrote:
> > I am artistic and I would like $60,000. Would it be easiest to write
a
> > $60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
>
> do they actually have to be worth $60,000? could i just slap
> fingerpaint on some looseleaf paper, and get paid $60,000, or does it
> have to be a good painting?
I knew a guy in Detroit -- a fairly wealthy doctor -- who wanted some
modern art in his house but wouldn't pay the price for originals. So he
bought some paint and canvas and copied the ones he liked. He only
copied people whose style was broad and primitive, like Karl Appel, and
he was happy as hell with his results. I think he ended up buying one
real Karl Appel so he could ask guests to try to guess which one was
real.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- I write like a savage in a savage time.
shuggie
Anything you can persuade somebody to part with $60,000 for is thereby worth
$60,000 - to that one person if no-one else. Whether it is 'good' is an entirely
different question.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
wrote:
You're approaching what I call "audacity art." Doesn't take near as
much talent as it does audacity to ask the prices. Pollock,
Mondrian... There's a bunch of 'em. My great joy comes from the fact
that the museums that paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for
Pollack's work back in his hey day now have troughs attached to the
walls under the paintings to catch the paint blobs as they fall away.
Caroline
Jacques E. Bouchard
<otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:n65be0999r87f1dfu...@4ax.com:
> My great joy comes from the fact
> that the museums that paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for
> Pollack's work back in his hey day now have troughs attached to the
> walls under the paintings to catch the paint blobs as they fall away.
Proving that, at least in Pollock's case, old painters don't die,
they just fall to pieces.
jaybee
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
Make that "old paintings" and you've got a winner. Pollock's dead!
But possibly also in pieces by now...? '-)
Asbestos Jeff
> Paint. Undress and roll around in the paint until you're completely covered
> in color, then press your body against the canvas and leave a good
> impression.
I once saw a movie about a Canadian painter and his girlfriend who did
this. Actually, I saw it about six times. Or at least three certain
scenes six times. I guess I sorta fast fowarded through the rest.
Jacques E. Bouchard
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:40:40 GMT, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
><jebouchard451R*E*M*O*V*E*M*E...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> Proving that, at least in Pollock's case, old painters don't
>> die,
>>they just fall to pieces.
>>
>>
>
> Make that "old paintings" and you've got a winner.
Not according to the bumper stickers!
> Pollock's dead!
> But possibly also in pieces by now...? '-)
He sure as hell fell to pieces before he went...
jaybee
pinknebulous
LOL.
pink
Asbestos Jeff
> $60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
OKAY, LISTEN UP! I'm going to crosspost this to alt.art.marketplace
and rec.music.makers.songwriting to see what they say. Just listen to
what they have to say without tipping them off. Then we can laugh at
them more.
Asbestos Jeff
Malcolm Dew-Jones
: I am artistic and I would like $60,000. Would it be easiest to write a
: $60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
Any one of those would be pretty easy.
The hard part would be selling it.
Tammy
That is how it is done .
"Asbestos Jeff" <sp...@miholer.com> wrote in message
news:958810b2.0407...@posting.google.com...
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
It's not a new painting "technique." You *do* want to do it with
water-base non-toxic paint and not with "classic" oil paints because
many colors of oil paints are downright poisonous.
A decade or few ago, I remember looking over photographs of a female
celebrity (actress?) painting large canvases with her body. My guess
is that it was in one of my ex-husband's "Playboy" magazines, but it
may have been "Life" or some other publication, and the celeb had what
you guys would call "a voluptuous body." Damned if I can recall who
it was though. So much for the eidetic memory of my youth! The
paintings weren't bad. Not great, but not terrible.
I thought maybe the internet could jog my memory, but instead I ran
across this article about some Hong Kong geeks who have come up with a
way to use your body to paint digitally, thereby escaping the need for
a shower and possible deep soak afterward.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/03/29/body.brush/
Ah well. So much for tactile experience!
Caroline
Adam Skeggs
"Tammy" <Ta...@dddddTammy.com> wrote in message
news:9aednRQ_EK6...@comcast.com...
Adam.
Michael
Happen to be impressed by Mondrian. His influence is still very strong.
But I get your point.
M
Michael
Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.
END OF CLICHE ALERT
Unless you're a speculator, a painting is only worth what you are
willing to pay for it.
James B. MItchell
> > news:958810b2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> > > I am artistic and I would like $60,000. Would it be easiest to
> write a
> > > $60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000
> painting?
> >
> >
> Do all 3 and make a whopping $180,000.
>
> Adam.
Come on... the guy's obviously a fake. No *true* artist ever mentions
art and money in the same sentence. ;^) LOL
-- James
shuggie
> CLICHE ALERT:
>
> Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.
>
> END OF CLICHE ALERT
>
> Unless you're a speculator, a painting is only worth what you are
> willing to pay for it.
>
actually I was referring to the fact that in a free market economy
*anything* - a painting, script, car, tin of baked beans, night with
Demi Moore - is only worth what someone is willing to pay. At least in
terms of monetary value - but since we're talking about selling
something that's all we're talking about.
That's true even if you're a speculator.
M.C.
jamesbm...@hotmail.com (James B. MItchell) wrote:
> Come on... the guy's obviously a fake. No *true* artist ever mentions
> art and money in the same sentence. ;^) LOL
>
"The trouble, Mr. Goldwyn, is that you are only interested in art蟻nd I
am only interested in money."
--George Bernard Shaw, refusing Goldwyn's offer of a job in Hollywood
Antti Luode
> $60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
If you go for the 60 000 dollar song, remember to have a lot of hoes on the
cover of the single.. Dawg..
Bling bling Antti
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>I am artistic and I would like $60,000. Would it be easiest to write a
>$60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
Okay, since nobody seems interested in a $60,000 origami, let me go
back to the original question. Assuming you're talking spec script,
Jeff, and assuming you find someone who wants to buy it, why would you
sell it for a measly 60K? Them's write-for-hire wages where they rent
you to illustrate somebody else's imagination.
You're in serious need of an agent, fella... Or an entertainment law
attorney. '-)
Caroline
I can recommend one.
Irene Jackson
--
IJ
http://www.irenejackson.com
http://www.irenejackson.com/tips.html
"Asbestos Jeff" <sp...@miholer.com> wrote in message
news:958810b2.0407...@posting.google.com...
Adam Skeggs
"James B. MItchell" <jamesbm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ee44b3d.04070...@posting.google.com...
On the contrary; the true artist bemoans the "sellouts" at every
opportunity.
Adam.
Adam Skeggs
"Irene Jackson" <ijno...@irenejackson.com> wrote in message
news:lIJFc.17955$WB5.11044@pd7tw2no...
Don't take their filthy money. Send it to me.
Adam.
ah3133
i'm from detroit! maybe i could sell your friend some abstract art :)
Tammy
The true artist does not bemoan the "sellouts" at every opportunity.
If the true artist cared nothing about money, he would not care if there
was a sellout or not.
But that is B.S. because practically every true artists cares about the
money.
derek
> That's B.S.
> The true artist does not bemoan the "sellouts" at every opportunity.
>
> If the true artist cared nothing about money, he would not care if there
> was a sellout or not.
>
> But that is B.S. because practically every true artists cares about the
> money.
And the true artist *needs* the money just as much as the true truck driver,
the true waiter, the true factory worker, the true nurse...
I don't get this BS about poverty somehow enhancing an artist's moral
credentials.
It's very easy to bemoan something as a sellout if you are not the person
who needs the income, and that's what it is, income, the stuff you need to
live. Get over it.
Jacques E. Bouchard
t...@comcast.com:
> That's B.S.
> The true artist does not bemoan the "sellouts" at every opportunity.
>
> If the true artist cared nothing about money, he would not care if there
> was a sellout or not.
>
> But that is B.S. because practically every true artists cares about the
> money.
True artists never say "B.S.".
jaybee
Tammy
Adam Skeggs
"Tammy" <Ta...@dddddTammy.com> wrote in message
> That's B.S.
> The true artist does not bemoan the "sellouts" at every
opportunity.
Yes I do :)
>
> If the true artist cared nothing about money, he would not care if
there
> was a sellout or not.
Troubled by people making crap music because they are in it for the
money.
>
> But that is B.S. because practically every true artists cares about
the
> money.
Practically everyone earning a buck from their Art has compromised it.
For many Artists there is nothing left but the compromise. Kind of
like a politician riding the opinion polls rather than trying to do
the right thing.
Adam Skeggs
"derek" <(askme)@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EMiGc.7459$LT3.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> "Tammy" <Ta...@dddddTammy.com> wrote in message
> news:ju2dnaH5B8g...@comcast.com...
> > That's B.S.
> > The true artist does not bemoan the "sellouts" at every
opportunity.
> >
> > If the true artist cared nothing about money, he would not care
if there
> > was a sellout or not.
> >
> > But that is B.S. because practically every true artists cares
about the
> > money.
>
> And the true artist *needs* the money just as much as the true truck
driver,
> the true waiter, the true factory worker, the true nurse...
To be a true artist you must be in a position that you don't need the
money. If you need the money and compromise your art then you are a
craftsperson not an artist. You said it yourself above where you liken
an artist with a factory worker. They are not even close to being the
same thing; a musician churning out songs like a factory worker is not
an artist but a craftsperson at best.
> I don't get this BS about poverty somehow enhancing an artist's
moral
> credentials.
Considerable cred goes to poverty stricken Artists if they don't
compromise and suffer anyway; dumb but impressive. Easier to be rich
and not compromise your Art. Then again being rich you may not
bother...
> It's very easy to bemoan something as a sellout if you are not the
person
> who needs the income, and that's what it is, income, the stuff you
need to
> live. Get over it.
Not complaining about people earning a buck I'm saying many such have
compromised their Art. That's just the way it is; there is nothing for
me to get over.
derek
> To be a true artist you must be in a position that you don't need the
> money.
How does that work? What *principles* of art are violated if someone
discovers their art is worth $60,000, not just $6?
> If you need the money and compromise your art then you are a
> craftsperson not an artist. You said it yourself above where you liken
> an artist with a factory worker.
I didn't liken an artist with a factory worker. I made the comparison that
people need to survive irrespective of their vocation. Why shouldn't an
artist be able to make money from their art? Was Salvador Dali, for example,
not an artist? Bertolucci? Nina Simone? They all found ways to exploit their
art to make money out of it.
> They are not even close to being the
> same thing; a musician churning out songs like a factory worker is not
> an artist but a craftsperson at best.
Who's talking about a "musician churning out songs like a factory worker"
apart from yourself? Sure plenty of people compromise their art, but I think
the whole art poverty thing is a straw whatsit. When does art become craft,
or only craft? And if someone finds a way to do something with their art
that enables them to make money, or more money out of it, what's wrong with
that, or at what point and under what circumstances does it become a
sellout? The neighbor's cat is seriously overweight; is that not art?
Don't feel obliged to answer any of the above. I just think they are
interesting questions.
Jacques E. Bouchard
$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
> To be a true artist you must be in a position that you don't need the
> money. If you need the money and compromise your art then you are a
> craftsperson not an artist. You said it yourself above where you liken
> an artist with a factory worker. They are not even close to being the
> same thing; a musician churning out songs like a factory worker is not
> an artist but a craftsperson at best.
The world is full of self-indulging whiny "artistes" whose work isn't
worth the dog crap that should be flung at it in protest.
Being forced to operate within definite parameters (i.e. "selling
out") in order to reach an audience is often the best damn thing raw talent
requires to be honed. It's discipline. Only the untalented crumble under
the demand and blame society for their own shortcomings.
jaybee
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<ask...@optusnet.com.auZZ> wrote:
>To be a true artist you must be in a position that you don't need the
>money. If you need the money and compromise your art then you are a
>craftsperson not an artist.
Well, that makes Van Gogh a high-falluting craft person, I'd say.
Thanks for clearing this up.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
Let me hazard a guess here... You consider yourself a "true artist"
and are vallidating yourself to yourself by blowing all this smoke?
And Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Beethoven, Mozart, Proust and Dickens, to
name but a few, were all craftsmen and not artists? Well, no one else
is buying it, but if you are, carry on!
Caroline
derek
> The world is full of self-indulging whiny "artistes" whose work isn't
> worth the dog crap that should be flung at it in protest.
There's no doubt about it, an unambiguous position can be a breath of fresh
air at times. Worm medicine, anyone?
David F. Cox
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns951F3FF5F8746je...@130.133.1.4...
> jaybee
Sometimes there is no middle ground. Sometimes the creator has a view, an
idea, and opinion that just not match with any reachable segment of society,
there is just no way to make money from it. In this case there are only two
real options - do what you believe, or "sell out" and follow the market.
True artists need food and shelter , they also need their art. Usually they
will beg, borrow or steal, or even work, to earn their physical needs, but
follow their muse when opportunity and muse allows.
It is not just art where it happens. Tim Berners-Lee believed in his vision
of the Internet, and slaved away to make it happen, realising that he would
waste too much time if he tried to seek a profit from doing it. I have been
in that position with inventions - I just gave them away. I thought my song
"High speed train" has the potential of becoming a folk club classic - but
not worth the effort of trying to make a dime from it - I just gave that
away too. I suspect that at some stage I may put my entire song catalogue
into the public domain. Very often it is the opportunity and ability to sell
that is more important than the product, and to the artist, the need to
express, or the joy of creation, that is more important than money or
comfort.
Strange creatures, us humans.
David F. Cox
>
Andrea
Yes, but he could easily, with some hard work and talent earn
60,000.00$ if he called himself a "prodcuer" and combined all three...
it could be a simple training,scientific or educational video, that
combines script writing,directing, art, production and music all in
one.
Do just one or two of these projects a year, then you can do the art
for arts sake and put it on the internet for free.
Andrea
http://www.andrearogers.com
Tammy
"Andrea" <roger...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:a4e42b5e.0407...@posting.google.com...
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
wrote:
>True artists need food and shelter , they also need their art. Usually they
>will beg, borrow or steal, or even work, to earn their physical needs, but
>follow their muse when opportunity and muse allows.
Precisely. The obvious point that Mr. Skeggs completely ignores is
that EVERY great artist whose work has survived did it for the money.
Even the sculptors of the Neolithic venus sculptures of 20,000 to
30,000 years ago bartered their art for material things to support
their life style.
The only unfortunate result of this truth is that any artist --
painter, writer, musician -- is rarely valued as well during his
lifetime as he is after. To coin a phrase, "C'est la mort."
Caroline
Tammy
alive.
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net>
wrote in message news:vudoe0pnba87gel7e...@4ax.com...
David F. Cox
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net>
wrote in message news:vudoe0pnba87gel7e...@4ax.com...
> wrote:
>
> >True artists need food and shelter , they also need their art. Usually
they
> >will beg, borrow or steal, or even work, to earn their physical needs,
but
> >follow their muse when opportunity and muse allows.
>
>
> Precisely.
The point I made was that they obtain their money to survive one way, not
art related, and their art usually costs them, usually materially, sometimes
physically. Most musicians and artists are in the negative income category,
and most artists never try and sell their work.
> The obvious point that Mr. Skeggs completely ignores is
> that EVERY great artist whose work has survived did it for the money.
wrong - many did it from belief, often religious - or just because they had
an inner drive, and create art by accident. They might draw or write
something for their children, which later turns out to have a commercial
value. I created an "artistic" garden, which helped to sell my house. At the
time I created it had great lumps of clay that I needed to hide, so I piled
them in arcs, and spread topsoil over them.
Asbestos Jeff
> OKAY, LISTEN UP! I'm going to crosspost this to alt.art.marketplace
> and rec.music.makers.songwriting to see what they say. Just listen to
> what they have to say without tipping them off. Then we can laugh at
> them more.
Hehehehe.
Asbestos Jeff
HAHAHAHAHA!
Asbestos Jeff
HAAAAH! HAAAH!! *HAAAAH*!!! <cough> HAA- <hack> <cough> HAAAH! <choke>
<cough> <hack> <cough> <inhale> <snort> <spit> Ha. <hack> Whew.
<cough> Damn-- <cough> --gotta quit smokin' after sex. <sigh> <cough>
James B. MItchell
LOL I guess that applies doubly then to that hack Johann Sebastian
whats-his-name. Imagine... churning out that slop of his on a weekly
basis just to keep his paid church post... what a sell-out. ;^)
-- James
Gene Harris
>> >To be a true artist you must be in a position that you don't need
>> >the money. If you need the money and compromise your art then you
>> >are a craftsperson not an artist.
>>
>>
>> Well, that makes Van Gogh a high-falluting craft person, I'd say.
>> Thanks for clearing this up.
>
> LOL I guess that applies doubly then to that hack Johann Sebastian
> whats-his-name. Imagine... churning out that slop of his on a weekly
> basis just to keep his paid church post... what a sell-out. ;^)
>
> -- James
True enough. I think JS Bach spent half of his time composing, the other
half of it making more Bachs, and the third half of it complaining to his
employers that he wasn't getting paid enough.
Gene
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
wrote:
And exactly where did I say thqat there are no living artists who are
valued?
But... You can bet your bottom dollar that, at least with graphic
artists, the value of their work will go up after they die.
Caroline
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
wrote:
>
>"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net>
>wrote in message news:vudoe0pnba87gel7e...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:43:22 GMT, "David F. Cox" <bigd...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >True artists need food and shelter , they also need their art. Usually
>they
>> >will beg, borrow or steal, or even work, to earn their physical needs,
>but
>> >follow their muse when opportunity and muse allows.
>>
>>
>> Precisely.
>
>The point I made was that they obtain their money to survive one way, not
>art related, and their art usually costs them, usually materially, sometimes
>physically. Most musicians and artists are in the negative income category,
>and most artists never try and sell their work.
>
>> The obvious point that Mr. Skeggs completely ignores is
>> that EVERY great artist whose work has survived did it for the money.
>
>wrong - many did it from belief, often religious - or just because they had
>an inner drive, and create art by accident. They might draw or write
>something for their children, which later turns out to have a commercial
>value. I created an "artistic" garden, which helped to sell my house. At the
>time I created it had great lumps of clay that I needed to hide, so I piled
>them in arcs, and spread topsoil over them.
>
Surely you are not calling that art? Or calling yourself an artist?
So what's your point? You and Tammy both seem to have trouble
grasping concepts.
I"m outta here!
Caroline
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
Okay. Now do the honorable thing and whack yourself across the
knuckles with a BIG ruler!
Carol
James B. MItchell
>
> True enough. I think JS Bach spent half of his time composing, the other
> half of it making more Bachs, and the third half of it complaining to his
> employers that he wasn't getting paid enough.
>
> Gene
Sounds like a man who knew how to live. :^)
-- James
Adam Skeggs
> "Adam Skeggs" <ask...@optusnet.com.auZZ>
>
> > To be a true artist you must be in a position that you don't need
the
> > money.
>
> How does that work? What *principles* of art are violated if someone
> discovers their art is worth $60,000, not just $6?
Discovery after the fact is fine. Doing market research to find out
what the hip
kids are into and then producing that to turn a dollar is what I am
complaining about.
>
> > If you need the money and compromise your art then you are a
> > craftsperson not an artist. You said it yourself above where you
liken
> > an artist with a factory worker.
>
> I didn't liken an artist with a factory worker. I made the
comparison that
> people need to survive irrespective of their vocation. Why shouldn't
an
> artist be able to make money from their art? Was Salvador Dali, for
example,
> not an artist? Bertolucci? Nina Simone? They all found ways to
exploit their
> art to make money out of it.
There is a difference between someone doing their own thing and being
"discovered"
and keeping on doing their thing and doing something because you think
it will be popular
and not inventing a perishing thing.
>
> > They are not even close to being the
> > same thing; a musician churning out songs like a factory worker is
not
> > an artist but a craftsperson at best.
>
> Who's talking about a "musician churning out songs like a factory
worker"
> apart from yourself?
Many people. eg anyone who rhymes eyes with lies, fire with desire.
> Sure plenty of people compromise their art, but I think
> the whole art poverty thing is a straw whatsit. When does art become
craft,
> or only craft?
When the principles are precisely established such that one can select
from a stock
of techniques and simply assemble them with no particular creativity.
eg using
pre recorded drum patterns and guitar strum patterns in software.
> And if someone finds a way to do something with their art
> that enables them to make money, or more money out of it, what's
wrong with
> that, or at what point and under what circumstances does it become a
> sellout?
Another tricky question. The point I think would be when, rather than
take an artistic risk
they say to themselves, no, that won't go down with the
kids/publisher/whoever, I will
change it to what I think they will like (what they know).
> The neighbor's cat is seriously overweight; is that not art?
No it isn't.
> Don't feel obliged to answer any of the above. I just think they are
> interesting questions.
Interesting questions is what we are here for.
Adam.
Adam Skeggs
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns951F3FF5F8746je...@130.133.1.4...
news:40eba959$0$18669
> $afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
> > To be a true artist you must be in a position that you don't need
the
> > money. If you need the money and compromise your art then you are
a
> > craftsperson not an artist. You said it yourself above where you
liken
> > an artist with a factory worker. They are not even close to being
the
> > same thing; a musician churning out songs like a factory worker is
not
> > an artist but a craftsperson at best.
>
>
> The world is full of self-indulging whiny "artistes" whose work
isn't
> worth the dog crap that should be flung at it in protest.
The word worth crops up again. Money seems to be God here.
Self indulgence is great! It makes "new stuff". Lack of self
indulgence is
a problem nowadays.
If something moves you so that you must sling dog crap at it then it
must
be a powerful statement :)
>
> Being forced to operate within definite parameters (i.e.
"selling
> out") in order to reach an audience is often the best damn thing raw
talent
> requires to be honed. It's discipline. Only the untalented crumble
under
> the demand and blame society for their own shortcomings.
Hone that raw talent till it is what people expect to hear? Shape it
into the
familiar? Mass audience is the only goal. You are not listening.
I am blaming nobody. I fight mediocrity (I need to get a spandex
suit). I don't want to listen to copy cat junk.
Adam.
>
>
>
>
> jaybee
Adam Skeggs
"David F. Cox" <bigd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uSUGc.391$tX3...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
Adam.
Adam Skeggs
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)"
<otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vudoe0pnba87gel7e...@4ax.com...
<bigd...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >True artists need food and shelter , they also need their art.
Usually they
> >will beg, borrow or steal, or even work, to earn their physical
needs, but
> >follow their muse when opportunity and muse allows.
>
>
> Precisely. The obvious point that Mr. Skeggs completely ignores is
> that EVERY great artist whose work has survived did it for the
money.
What is your source for this outrageous statement.
> Even the sculptors of the Neolithic venus sculptures of 20,000 to
> 30,000 years ago bartered their art for material things to support
> their life style.
Prove it.
>
> The only unfortunate result of this truth is that any artist --
> painter, writer, musician -- is rarely valued as well during his
> lifetime as he is after. To coin a phrase, "C'est la mort."
>
> Caroline
To coin a phrase, "ye be so deeply mired in the capitalist ethos that
um... you know";
maybe that won't take off.
Adam.
Adam Skeggs
"Carol" <kg...@helkusa.com> wrote in message
news:y7CdnekD2cT...@comcast.com...
> what do mean by "concept?"
>
>
You get the prize for funniest post of the thread.
Adam.
Adam Skeggs
Ding! wrong; I claim Van Gogh for my side. He did not profit from his
art
(his brother supported him). In any case, he produced work without
compromise (who the hell knows?) anyway.
To be precise, he lived without selling his work; hence he did not
need the money.
Adam.
Jacques E. Bouchard
$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
> "Jacques E. Bouchard" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns951F3FF5F8746je...@130.133.1.4...
>> Being forced to operate within definite parameters (i.e.
> "selling
>> out") in order to reach an audience is often the best damn thing raw
> talent
>> requires to be honed. It's discipline. Only the untalented crumble
> under
>> the demand and blame society for their own shortcomings.
>
> Hone that raw talent till it is what people expect to hear? Shape it
> into the
> familiar?
No. Hone your talent until you can reach your audience. Anyone can
paint gibberish that means nothing to anyone but themselves. It takes
talent to reach out.
> Mass audience is the only goal. You are not listening.
Avoiding self-indulgent masturbation is the only goal.
jaybee
Adam Skeggs
"James B. MItchell" <jamesbm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ee44b3d.04070...@posting.google.com...
Lots of classical composers turned out formulaic junk to earn a buck.
The best of their work is brilliant but a swag of it is crud too. JSB
and Mozart included.
I wonder what an unfettered JSB would have produced?
Adam.
new...@virtual.com
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Avoiding self-indulgent masturbation is the only goal.
But what if... you're really, really good at self-indulgent
masturbation???
Doug
"Life is like a river. If you ain't gettin' your
feet wet, you ain't kickin' hard enough."
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<ask...@optusnet.com.auZZ> wrote:
>
>"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)"
><otto....@keepyourviruses-sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:kkone0dojpptrv48h...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 17:39:04 +1000, "Adam Skeggs"
>> <ask...@optusnet.com.auZZ> wrote:
>>
>> >To be a true artist you must be in a position that you don't need
>the
>> >money. If you need the money and compromise your art then you are a
>> >craftsperson not an artist.
>>
>>
>> Well, that makes Van Gogh a high-falluting craft person, I'd say.
>> Thanks for clearing this up.
>
>Ding! wrong; I claim Van Gogh for my side. He did not profit from his
>art
>(his brother supported him). In any case, he produced work without
>compromise (who the hell knows?) anyway.
>
>To be precise, he lived without selling his work; hence he did not
>need the money.
>
>Adam.
>
Vincent sold paintings, Adam. He just couldn't sell them for enough
to live off of.
So much for your theory. ))>>>poof!<<<((
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<ask...@optusnet.com.auZZ> wrote:
>> Precisely. The obvious point that Mr. Skeggs completely ignores is
>> that EVERY great artist whose work has survived did it for the
>money.
>
>What is your source for this outrageous statement.
The fact that their art has survived relates directly to the fact that
somepone paid money for it and therefore valued it. Otherwise, when
the painter diess, the family goes in and all of his unsold and
unwanted "art" is hauled off to the dump!
>
>> Even the sculptors of the Neolithic venus sculptures of 20,000 to
>> 30,000 years ago bartered their art for material things to support
>> their life style.
>
>Prove it.
Well, last time I was on an archaeological dig in France, we unearthed
this whole Neolithic village, and what do you think we found? The
dwelling of the guy who did all the sculptures was crowded with all
sorts of goos from the flint knappers and tanners and even the village
electrician, but none of them had more than one piece of his work in
their dwellings. The conclusion is obvious.
Caroline
Jacques E. Bouchard
> On 9 Jul 2004 01:21:05 GMT, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
><inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Avoiding self-indulgent masturbation is the only goal.
>
> But what if... you're really, really good at self-indulgent
> masturbation???
Then you can become a misunderstood artiste. One in a hundred.
jaybee
Adam Skeggs
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:11:56 +1000, "Adam Skeggs"
> <ask...@optusnet.com.auZZ> wrote:
>
> >> Precisely. The obvious point that Mr. Skeggs completely ignores
is
> >> that EVERY great artist whose work has survived did it for the
> >money.
> >
> >What is your source for this outrageous statement.
Outrageous for presuming to know the motivation of EVERY great artist.
I mean, we don't know
who many of the ancient ones were.
First define great artist and don't say the most popular ones or you
will have
to include some singers I don't like.
Second qualify "did it for the money"; did they do it just to get
money, having no interest in
the work or did they really create something new and get paid for it
as a
bonus?
>
> The fact that their art has survived relates directly to the fact
that
> somepone paid money for it and therefore valued it.
Not saying you can't get paid for artwork. Saying if that is mostly
what it's done for and if you pander too much
to what you think may be popular then you are compromised, maybe (and
commonly from what I can
see) to the point where you can't be termed an artist.
> Otherwise, when
> the painter diess, the family goes in and all of his unsold and
> unwanted "art" is hauled off to the dump!
Plenty of paintings by old masters turn up in attics. The owners were
not interested in these
works enough to hang them on their walls but when they are
rediscovered, suddenly they
have enormous value due to the fame of the artist. There are really
large numbers of painting of the virgin and child in
galleries in Europe; paid for but really formula stuff; they are only
exhibited because they are really old. Much gold stolen
from South American Natives was in the form of artwork - valued by
them but melted down by others for the value of the
metal. The point is that using monetary value as the measure of
artistry is bunk.
>
> >
> >> Even the sculptors of the Neolithic venus sculptures of 20,000 to
> >> 30,000 years ago bartered their art for material things to
support
> >> their life style.
> >
> >Prove it.
>
> Well, last time I was on an archaeological dig in France, we
unearthed
> this whole Neolithic village, and what do you think we found? The
> dwelling of the guy who did all the sculptures was crowded with all
> sorts of goos from the flint knappers and tanners and even the
village
> electrician, but none of them had more than one piece of his work in
> their dwellings. The conclusion is obvious.
Archaeologists are well famed for drawing obvious conclusions that are
dead wrong (but still getting paid for it); I assume you
were a volunteer however.
It would be handy to know the nature of the "artworks" like are they
all nearly identical, do they differ down the generations, are they
religous idols; a thousand other details might be significant. Even
Poirot would need more facts than that and you appear to be playing
Hastings with your obvious conclusion.
Anyway, of the thousands of alternative views of these few facts here
are a couple of different ones.
A) Was he an "artist" or was he churning out identical figures eg of
the village God - which would make him a "craftsman". His position
may have been hereditary and he a total hack.
B) Ownership of one of these religious figures may have been
compulsory. That people bought them does not mean they are art.
C) Did he get paid for the figures or did he get paid for connected
religious/shamanistic services.
D) Was he a big man of the village who turned out some crappy figures
that he thought were really ace but which eveyone else hated but
had to have or get into trouble?
E) Was he the local trader in village wares (thus had stacks of stuff
in his "shop").
Adam.
>
> Caroline
Adam Skeggs
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> "Adam Skeggs" <ask...@optusnet.com.auZZ> wrote in
news:40edf030$0$25461
> $afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
> >
> > "Jacques E. Bouchard" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:Xns951F3FF5F8746je...@130.133.1.4...
> >> Being forced to operate within definite parameters (i.e.
> > "selling
> >> out") in order to reach an audience is often the best damn thing
raw
> > talent
> >> requires to be honed. It's discipline. Only the untalented
crumble
> > under
> >> the demand and blame society for their own shortcomings.
> >
> > Hone that raw talent till it is what people expect to hear? Shape
it
> > into the
> > familiar?
>
> No. Hone your talent until you can reach your audience. Anyone
can
> paint gibberish that means nothing to anyone but themselves. It
takes
> talent to reach out.
Good point. There is a good deal of gibberish painted (eg Colourfield)
which fetches
huge sums. Why? artistic merit? HAHA! It's used for means of class
distinction since those
"in the know" pretent it's really ace and everyone else - who know
it's trash - are on the
outside and therefore lower on the totem-pole. A case could be made
that this con is itself "Art".
Another: You can perform a concert miming to a tape. The contents of
the tape consist of
A) Lyrics written by someone else (a rehash of a thousand songs).
B) Music written by someone else (not even vaguely original).
C) The "Artists" own voice, compressed, auto tuned, pitch shifted blah
blah blah.
...and the audience loves it due to:
A) They like the image of the "Artist"
B) They are stupid.
>
>
> > Mass audience is the only goal. You are not listening.
>
> Avoiding self-indulgent masturbation is the only goal.
>
A certain amount of self-indulgence is I think required; I am equating
self-indulgence with imagination which is an absolute requirement.
Adam.
>
>
> jaybee
Adam Skeggs
He sold them to his brother I thought and maybe Gaugin bought one; I
forget. In either case it was charity.
Who else bought them?
Anyway, as your said he did not live off them yet he was an artist
which proves my point that you don't have
to sell or be popular to be an artist.
Adam.
derek
news:40edef13$0$16108$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Discovery after the fact is fine. Doing market research to find out
> what the hip kids are into and then producing that to turn a dollar is
what I am
> complaining about.
Sure, I hear what you're saying. And I get the argument that's advanced. But
I'm interested - even in the most commercial sense you describe it above -
in what principles are breached by doing that? If the way the best amount of
money is earned is the single criterion for waying it is not art, it's a
sellout, then it feels like that's not an adequate explanation. Is it
because you're no longer following your closest passion, and if so does that
make it not art, or just a different sort of art?
> There is a difference between someone doing their own thing and being
> "discovered"
> and keeping on doing their thing and doing something because you think
> it will be popular and not inventing a perishing thing.
That was one reason I included Dali, because he was notorious for scratching
out crude scribblings and selling them to make money. Nina Simone was
exploited every aspect of her art commercially but it made her no less of an
artist. If she had chosen part of her repertoire on the basis it increased
sales, not because it was what she most wanted to do, would those
performances still be art?
> When the principles are precisely established such that one can select
> from a stock
> of techniques and simply assemble them with no particular creativity.
> eg using
> pre recorded drum patterns and guitar strum patterns in software.
You may be right, but why does the means someone uses to create an artistic
end make it not art? It's not difficult to think of scenarios where the
definitions become very fuzzy.
> The point I think would be when, rather than take an artistic risk
> they say to themselves, no, that won't go down with the
> kids/publisher/whoever, I will
> change it to what I think they will like (what they know).
I'd say that was a yes some of the time situation, perhaps often. I forgot
what else I was going to say... ... Oh yes, right now I'd go for the
60,000.
Adam Skeggs
> "Adam Skeggs" <ask...@optusnet.com.auZZ> wrote in message
> news:40edef13$0$16108$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > Discovery after the fact is fine. Doing market research to find
out
> > what the hip kids are into and then producing that to turn a
dollar is
> what I am
> > complaining about.
>
> Sure, I hear what you're saying. And I get the argument that's
advanced. But
> I'm interested - even in the most commercial sense you describe it
above -
> in what principles are breached by doing that?
The "principle" is that it produces music (and other stuff) that I
don't like. I want more of what I like and less of what I don't and
argue the point in the lunatic belief that I can make it happen.
> If the way the best amount of
> money is earned is the single criterion for waying it is not art,
it's a
> sellout, then it feels like that's not an adequate explanation. Is
it
> because you're no longer following your closest passion, and if so
does that
> make it not art, or just a different sort of art?
>
> > There is a difference between someone doing their own thing and
being
> > "discovered"
> > and keeping on doing their thing and doing something because you
think
> > it will be popular and not inventing a perishing thing.
>
> That was one reason I included Dali, because he was notorious for
scratching
> out crude scribblings and selling them to make money. Nina Simone
was
> exploited every aspect of her art commercially but it made her no
less of an
> artist. If she had chosen part of her repertoire on the basis it
increased
> sales, not because it was what she most wanted to do, would those
> performances still be art?
There are plenty of grey areas and plenty of examples I would not try
to argue with. I stand firm that there are plenty of really blatant
cases in which there is no art at all.
>
> > When the principles are precisely established such that one can
select
> > from a stock
> > of techniques and simply assemble them with no particular
creativity.
> > eg using
> > pre recorded drum patterns and guitar strum patterns in software.
>
> You may be right, but why does the means someone uses to create an
artistic
> end make it not art? It's not difficult to think of scenarios where
the
> definitions become very fuzzy.
Again you can certainly think of examples on the borderline but I
don't think that rescues the blatant copycats.
>
> > The point I think would be when, rather than take an artistic risk
> > they say to themselves, no, that won't go down with the
> > kids/publisher/whoever, I will
> > change it to what I think they will like (what they know).
>
> I'd say that was a yes some of the time situation, perhaps often. I
forgot
> what else I was going to say... ... Oh yes, right now I'd go for
the
> 60,000.
With 60,000 I could buy a T-shirt that said "I'm a serious artist and
everyone else isn't!" which would make me feel better.
Adam.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<ask...@optusnet.com.auZZ> wrote:
>The "principle" is that it produces music (and other stuff) that I
>don't like. I want more of what I like and less of what I don't and
>argue the point in the lunatic belief that I can make it happen.
LOL! As long as you have a clear understanding of the situation. '-)
Jacques E. Bouchard
$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
> "derek" <(askme)@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dcvHc.9063$LT3.3...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>>
>> Sure, I hear what you're saying. And I get the argument that's
> advanced. But
>> I'm interested - even in the most commercial sense you describe it
> above -
>> in what principles are breached by doing that?
>
> The "principle" is that it produces music (and other stuff) that I
> don't like. I want more of what I like and less of what I don't and
> argue the point in the lunatic belief that I can make it happen.
But if there was more stuff that you - and others - like, wouldn't
that then become commercial?
jaybee
James B. MItchell
>
> Anyway, as your said he did not live off them yet he was an artist
> which proves my point that you don't have
> to sell or be popular to be an artist.
>
> Adam.
Actually, Adam, this is quite a modification from your original point,
which was:
"To be a true artist you must be in a position that you don't need the
money."
Your original point excludes all people who need money from being
"true" artists. The modified statement above is quite different - it
includes those who don't sell or are not popular as potentially "true"
artists.
I have no problem with this current statement. I have a real problem
with the first one.
I checked a couple of online biogs for Van Gogh and it does appear
that he only sold one painting during his lifetime, so I'd say he
falls in your camp.
But I wonder where you place someone like Leonardo DaVinci - a
brilliant artist and inventor - who obviously negotated and worked on
commission to produce his - what would you call the Sistine Chapel -
"craftwork"? ;^) He needed the money to live and he employed his
skills as an artist to earn a living. Does that make him a
craftsperson and not an artist?
This idea of an artist who lives with no connection to the mundane
world's requirement of paying the rent by employing his artistic
abilities is a relatively new concept in the whole history of
humankind - maybe 250 years, right? So if we say "true art" can only
show up under these new conditions, we'd have to say no true art was
created before the appearance of this concept. That's very hard to
swallow. I believe there are great examples of true art (don't like
that phrase but I'll use it) from every age - most of it done as paid
work. True art is not something that popped up on the scene a few
hundred years ago.
-- James
James B. MItchell
LOL -- I hate it when I make a great argument and screw up the facts.
I was thinking Michelangelo to start with and then I switched it to
DaVinci somewhere in the course of things. Sorry about that - DaVinci
didn't do the Sistine Chapel, of course. Somewhere in my addled brain
the two got mis-wired together for a moment.
Interesting, though, with Michelangelo - he was quite big on trade
secrets and even had assistants sign what was basically an early form
of non-disclosure agreement regarding paint formulas. Another example
of art and business mixing.
-- James
Andrea
> Have any of you done any of this?
>
> "Andrea" <roger...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:a4e42b5e.0407...@posting.google.com...
> > "Irene Jackson" <ijno...@irenejackson.com> wrote in message
> news:<lIJFc.17955$WB5.11044@pd7tw2no>...
> > > Do all three and settle for praise :-)
> >
> > Yes, but he could easily, with some hard work and talent earn
> > 60,000.00$ if he called himself a "prodcuer" and combined all three...
> > it could be a simple training,scientific or educational video, that
> > combines script writing,directing, art, production and music all in
> > one.
> > Do just one or two of these projects a year, then you can do the art
> > for arts sake and put it on the internet for free.
> > Andrea
> > http://www.andrearogers.com
Yes, just one project has me set for the rest of the year. Then there
are a few more that are spread out, but it leaves time to work on fun,
non commercial work. I try to keep a balance, so I don't burn out on
one or the other.
Andrea
http://www.andrearogers.com
David F. Cox
"Asbestos Jeff" <sp...@miholer.com> wrote in message
news:958810b2.0407...@posting.google.com...
> I am artistic and I would like $60,000. Would it be easiest to write a
> $60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
>
I do not know anybody who made a $60,000 painting at their first attempt -
it usually takes a very long track record to reach this level - so in 3rd -
the painting.
A script that is worth $60,000 usually involves a lot of work, but can make
it first time - so that rates 2nd place
a song can be as little as 3 minutes work, and make it if performed in the
right time, in the right place. I could imagine it easily happening, for
instance, to a school-kid who performs their own Christmas song on a video -
so that makes no 1.
For that matter "Cement mixer - putty, putty" was a big hit for Slim
Gaillaird (?), and was allegedly written on the car ride to the recording
studio.
David F. Cox
derek
> The "principle" is that it produces music (and other stuff) that I
> don't like. I want more of what I like and less of what I don't and
> argue the point in the lunatic belief that I can make it happen.
Well I sure don't want to be responsible for driving you to lunatic beliefs,
assuming it hasn't already happened of course.
> There are plenty of grey areas and plenty of examples I would not try
> to argue with. I stand firm that there are plenty of really blatant
> cases in which there is no art at all.
No art at all? There are cases plenty where 'art' shouldn't even be used in
the same sentence, unless handed down by a judge.
> With 60,000 I could buy a T-shirt that said "I'm a serious artist and
> everyone else isn't!" which would make me feel better.
And depending how you wore it, and how uncompromising you were in your
principles, why heck, that could even make you an artist.
It's easier for adults, we can bluster our way through stuff like that.
But I feel sorry for the kids, they make something crazy, and they think it
bes art, and a parent comes in the room and says you better clean that mess
up before dinner.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert
Einstein
"There are some days when I think I'm going to die from an overdose of
satisfaction." Salvador Dali
derek
> A script that is worth $60,000 usually involves a lot of work, but can
make
> it first time - so that rates 2nd place
Except they will only pay $107.95 for it.
> For that matter "Cement mixer - putty, putty" was a big hit for Slim
> Gaillaird (?), and was allegedly written on the car ride to the recording
> studio.
When the Beatles did their first gig with Indian musician Ravi Shankar, the
audience revealled its knowledge of his music by giving him an ovation for
tuning up.
M.C.
"derek" <(askme)@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When the Beatles did their first gig with Indian musician Ravi Shankar, the
> audience revealled its knowledge of his music by giving him an ovation for
> tuning up.
Are you sure the Beatles gigged with Shankar?
derek
"M.C." <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote in message
news:copespaz-DF590D...@mail.inter.net...
Perhaps it was only John and George, but they did an open-air performance
with him and a few other Indian musicians - I've seen footage of it but
other than that my memory is a bit vague.
SlipperyStar
> I am artistic and I would like $60,000. Would it be easiest to write a
> $60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
Just do all three for the low low price of $150,000. That's what I do
when I'm down on cash.
Tom
www.soundclick.com/slipperystar
Check out my new version of Liberator (2nd edition). It Rocks!
SlipperyStar
> I am artistic and I would like $60,000. Would it be easiest to write a
> $60,000 script, compose a $60,000 song or paint a $60,000 painting?
I would just do all three for the low low cost of 150,000. Makes it
easy and a bargain.
Lynn
very simple...
Art = "creating"
Craft = "re-creating"
A piece of "art" is created from the inspiration or vision of the artist.
Whether or not the work is later bought by an admirer is irrelevant.
But if the artist THEN upon seeing that his creation is in demand, decides
to reproduce the work to sell to other admirers, he becomes a craftsman.
Likewise if a client approaches the artist and asks him to produce a
specific job, even if the artist creates the work based on very vague
instructions, it would be considered a craft because it did not arise from
the artists own inspiration.
When I write a song based on my own ideas and emotions, it is art. When I
write a song to a certain set of criteria, say, for a specific artist and
genre, it is craft. This is regardless of whether I am paid for my work or
not. Mostly I work for free!
--
Lynn
==============
Listen to my music...
http://www.soundclick.com/wobbly
http://www.soundclick.com/lynn
http://www.soundclick.com/johnmckeon
http://www.soundclick.com/dickosboogieband
http://212.158.208.95/gallery1.asp?ID=47
"James B. MItchell" <jamesbm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ee44b3d.04070...@posting.google.com...
Richard Wilcox
"Lynn" <lynnmonk...@btclick.com> wrote in message
news:ccoi67$eui$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Here is the definition of "art" from Miriam-Webster online. I can't see how
money alters anything save for, perhaps, the creator's perception. The
synonyms should also be noted, craft, artifice, cunning and craft.
Artists in starving garrets? I've never seen a garret starving ;-))
Richard
Quote:-
"Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: 'ärt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at
ARM
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making
friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL
ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the
production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS
(2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
synonyms ART, SKILL, CUNNING, ARTIFICE, CRAFT mean the faculty of executing
well what one has devised. ART implies a personal, unanalyzable creative
power <the art of choosing the right word>. SKILL stresses technical
knowledge and proficiency <the skill of a glassblower>. CUNNING suggests
ingenuity and subtlety in devising, inventing, or executing <a mystery
plotted with great cunning>. ARTIFICE suggests technical skill especially in
imitating things in nature <believed realism in film could be achieved only
by artifice>. CRAFT may imply expertness in workmanship <the craft of a
master goldsmith>. "
--
Some places to look for tips and help with all aspects of songwriting
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/richhoncho/
Test your song against the classic songs
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/richhoncho/blunders.htm
Adam Skeggs
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
I suppose ye think that's clever young feller.
Adam.
>
>
> jaybee
Adam Skeggs
> "Adam Skeggs" <ask...@optusnet.com.auZZ> wrote:
>
> > The "principle" is that it produces music (and other stuff) that I
> > don't like. I want more of what I like and less of what I don't
and
> > argue the point in the lunatic belief that I can make it happen.
>
> Well I sure don't want to be responsible for driving you to lunatic
beliefs,
> assuming it hasn't already happened of course.
Assuming it has I am in no position to judge.
>
> > There are plenty of grey areas and plenty of examples I would not
try
> > to argue with. I stand firm that there are plenty of really
blatant
> > cases in which there is no art at all.
>
> No art at all? There are cases plenty where 'art' shouldn't even be
used in
> the same sentence, unless handed down by a judge.
In all candour I am sick of the frikin word.
>
> > With 60,000 I could buy a T-shirt that said "I'm a serious artist
and
> > everyone else isn't!" which would make me feel better.
>
> And depending how you wore it, and how uncompromising you were in
your
> principles, why heck, that could even make you an artist.
You are right. Don't forget I have copyright on that.
> It's easier for adults, we can bluster our way through stuff like
that.
> But I feel sorry for the kids, they make something crazy, and they
think it
> bes art, and a parent comes in the room and says you better clean
that mess
> up before dinner.
>
>
> "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
Albert
> Einstein
The Iron Chefs work on similar lines (gawd).
Adam.
Jacques E. Bouchard
$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
> "Jacques E. Bouchard" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9521881783CBDje...@130.133.1.4...
>> "Adam Skeggs" <ask...@optusnet.com.auZZ> wrote in
> news:40eeb1fd$0$25462
>> $afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
>>
>> > The "principle" is that it produces music (and other stuff) that I
>> > don't like. I want more of what I like and less of what I don't
> and
>> > argue the point in the lunatic belief that I can make it happen.
>>
>>
>> But if there was more stuff that you - and others - like,
> wouldn't
>> that then become commercial?
>>
>
> I suppose ye think that's clever young feller.
It's also true.
jaybee
Jacques E. Bouchard
news:ccoi67$eui$1...@sparta.btinternet.com:
> A piece of "art" is created from the inspiration or vision of the
> artist. Whether or not the work is later bought by an admirer is
> irrelevant. But if the artist THEN upon seeing that his creation is in
> demand, decides to reproduce the work to sell to other admirers, he
> becomes a craftsman. Likewise if a client approaches the artist and
> asks him to produce a specific job, even if the artist creates the
> work based on very vague instructions, it would be considered a craft
> because it did not arise from the artists own inspiration.
>
> When I write a song based on my own ideas and emotions, it is art.
> When I write a song to a certain set of criteria, say, for a specific
> artist and genre, it is craft. This is regardless of whether I am paid
> for my work or not. Mostly I work for free!
> --
> Lynn
>==============
> Listen to my music...
> http://www.soundclick.com/wobbly
> http://www.soundclick.com/lynn
> http://www.soundclick.com/johnmckeon
> http://www.soundclick.com/dickosboogieband
> http://212.158.208.95/gallery1.asp?ID=47
Lynn, seems to me that the difference between producing "art" for
free, or producing it for pay, is how much people like it. And since you
extensively advertise your art, you are obviously trying to reach people
and obtain their approval.
You, Lynn, are searching for an audience. By your own definition,
you're selling out.
jaybee
Adam Skeggs
"James B. MItchell" <jamesbm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ee44b3d.04070...@posting.google.com...
news:<40ee30da$0$18670$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>...
>
> >
> > Anyway, as your said he did not live off them yet he was an artist
> > which proves my point that you don't have
> > to sell or be popular to be an artist.
> >
> > Adam.
>
> Actually, Adam, this is quite a modification from your original
point,
> which was:
>
> "To be a true artist you must be in a position that you don't need
the
> money."
History is bunk - Patton (I think).
I claim qdos for modifying my position thus demonstrating my
reasonableness.
>
> Your original point excludes all people who need money from being
> "true" artists. The modified statement above is quite different -
it
> includes those who don't sell or are not popular as potentially
"true"
> artists.
Need money from the art not need money
>
> I have no problem with this current statement. I have a real
problem
> with the first one.
>
> I checked a couple of online biogs for Van Gogh and it does appear
> that he only sold one painting during his lifetime, so I'd say he
> falls in your camp.
>
> But I wonder where you place someone like Leonardo DaVinci - a
> brilliant artist and inventor - who obviously negotated and worked
on
> commission to produce his - what would you call the Sistine Chapel -
> "craftwork"? ;^) He needed the money to live and he employed his
> skills as an artist to earn a living. Does that make him a
> craftsperson and not an artist?
For the Sistene chappel you are thinking of Michelangelo not Leonardo.
It's an interesting point you raise; the times were very different
indeed. Leonardo (and others) were at the forefront not only of "Art"
but of science. Now science is still an area where inovation is not
only valued but indeed compulsory since only through new discoveries
is loot pulled down. Several arts at the time were being rediscovered
and greatly advanced. Several "arts" are now in rehash mode since it
is an easy way to make money; witness movies being remade that don't
need to be remade; songs being covered that are flacid compared to the
originals; painting, sculpture, architecture are dead so I will not
waste pixels on them.
>
> This idea of an artist who lives with no connection to the mundane
> world's requirement of paying the rent by employing his artistic
> abilities is a relatively new concept in the whole history of
> humankind - maybe 250 years, right? So if we say "true art" can
only
> show up under these new conditions, we'd have to say no true art was
> created before the appearance of this concept. That's very hard to
> swallow. I believe there are great examples of true art (don't
like
> that phrase but I'll use it) from every age - most of it done as
paid
> work. True art is not something that popped up on the scene a few
> hundred years ago.
>
The idea that the modern world is so very different from the ancient
frequently ain't true however your point is a good one and gave me
pause to think. To defend my position I will have to refine it. REFINE
it I said not flip flop etc (before you get on your damn high horse:).
Leonardo, Michelangelo, Praxitelles, Brahms for all I know were doing
paid work for patrons of the arts. These people were fully versed in
the arts and actually advanced them by paying the top dudes to work.
The point of these works was personal agrandisement of the patron
(whether it be church or secular political leader eg de Medicis in
Florence, various popes etc). I am saying that the audience was well
educated - really I am saying they weren't gullible kids. The music
scene today is heavily focused on kids; they don't know a lot which
makes them easy to exploit - and they have money, that's why they are
targeted. Michelangelo had to impress one guy - the pope; no lowest
denominator there; no market research on what will wow the youth of
today, cheap stunts like grabbing headlines with obscene language.
If some of this is not very consistent I wouldn't get too excited.
Adam.
>
> -- James
Adam Skeggs
Well put.
Adam.