[WR] Audience: Targeting Your Writing?
Zero
sure, if you want to sell your writing,
audience can be a major issue, i suppose.
or if you want to influence certain people
for some political reason or religious quest.
what are the other motivations for writing to
definite audience?
writing to a demographic...
writing to a psychographic...
writing to a spiritographic...
writing to a audienciographic...
what if audience is not an issue?
what if you don't want to target anyone?
what if you are simply writing to the
people who become your audience?
is that looked down upon? why?
are you just a demographic?
yes, you are. probably.
did Mozart have you in mind?
did Da Vinci really have you in mind?
did Einstein really have you in mind?
did Alex de Toq really have you in mind?
did Thomas Jefferson really have you in mind?
did Mark Twain really have you in mind?
did Georgie O really have you in mind?
did Gene Roddenberry really have you in mind?
did Thomas Edison really have you in mind?
how many of the artists/thinkers
(that you find great) actually had
you in mind?
can you name them? can you name even one?
what did the "artists" of the world really have in mind
when they created their various "contributions."
what did their biographers have in mind when they
suggested what these people had in mind?
"just writing in-the-flow...
sometimes it brings out
the worst in people...
but i'm confident that the
overall effect is positive..."
-- $Zero...
Re: Absence of Quality? (Re: Writing for Money vs. ... what?)
news:<20020624001728...@mb-fm.aol.com>
I'll pay you cash money to write about CHANGING YOUR OWN DEMOGRAPHICS
...
Wanna get paid to argue online?
CONTACT: Zero...@aol.com
http://www.PayPal.com
Angela St.Aubin
the heck are you people!?!
This is so stupid. We live in reality here! If you wan to be a real writer,
IE, a published writer, you have to have a target market in mind. That will
help the publisher choose you, and it will help deciede how to market your
work, where to sell it, hardcover or paperback, price, design. not to
mention a suggested age, so a child doesnt buy a hard core sex book, etc.
You dont publish a book with no target market, just sending it out there and
hoping veryone will like it.
BE REALISTIC AND STOP THIS MELLOW DRAMATIC DRIVEL!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Geno
"Angela St.Aubin" <bo...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Tq5k9.3727$2T6.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Gimme a f*$%ing break here! I read this post and couldnt stop laughing!
who
> the heck are you people!?!
> This is so stupid. We live in reality here! If you wan to be a real
writer,
> IE, a published writer, you have to have a target market in mind. That
will
> help the publisher choose you, and it will help deciede how to market your
> work, where to sell it, hardcover or paperback, price, design. not to
> mention a suggested age, so a child doesnt buy a hard core sex book, etc.
> You dont publish a book with no target market, just sending it out there
and
> hoping veryone will like it.
>
> BE REALISTIC AND STOP THIS MELLOW DRAMATIC DRIVEL!
On the contrary. My very successful (self-published) book was written with
no target audience in mind. But because of the beautiful cover and sharp
looking fonts, *A BOOK EVERYONE WILL BUY* (Lutz Publishing 1998) has sold
more than ten-thousand copies (@ 21.95 per copy, postage paid in the USA).
Do the math.
Next year we plan a second edition featuring a fold out of my cat Arnold.
Advance orders have already deferred printing costs. Lutz is a genius.
--Geno<sitting on God's knee in the lap of luxury>Royer
@bellsouth.net doyle
news:Tq5k9.3727$2T6.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
who
> the heck are you people!?!
Welcome to misc.writing. Perhaps you're new here.
From http://www.scalar.com/mw/
"misc.writing ("mw") is a UseNet newsgroup that provides a forum for
discussion of writing in all its forms - scholarly, technical, journalistic,
artistic and mere day-to-day communication. It is a venue for professional
writers, would-be professionals and all those who write to communicate."
> This is so stupid. We live in reality here! If you wan to be a real
writer,
> IE, a published writer, you have to have a target market in mind. That
will
> help the publisher choose you,
Effective writing targets a specific group of readers. Unfortunately it
seems that in your eyes, only publication qualifies someone as a "real
writer." Those who are still working toward that end aren't "real writers"?
How about those individuals who write not for individual publication but
memoranda, rules and regulations, procedures and such for an employer? Is
their writing any less a "real."
> and it will help deciede how to market your
> work, where to sell it, hardcover or paperback,
Brochures? Grant proposals? Even junk mail!
> price, design. not to
> mention a suggested age, so a child doesnt buy a hard core sex book, etc.
> You dont publish a book with no target market, just sending it out there
and
> hoping veryone will like it.
>
> BE REALISTIC AND STOP THIS MELLOW DRAMATIC DRIVEL!
Correct spelling, punctuation and usage helps, too.
--
Donna
----------
Towse
doyle wrote:
>
> "Angela St.Aubin" <bo...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > Gimme a f*$%ing break here! I read this post and couldnt stop laughing!
> > who the heck are you people!?!
>
> Welcome to misc.writing. Perhaps you're new here.
Angela is allegedly working with "my english lit. students"
looking for the best story/book ideas ever. Seems a bit young to
be be rustling up info, "working with my english lit. students",
but hey.
"Where the Wild Things Are" gets my vote: Max, wild things, a
rumpus, and home -- a place "... where someone loves him best of
all."
How can you beat that?
Sal
--
1900+ useful links for writers
<http://www.internet-resources.com/writers/>
Zero
"Angela St.Aubin" <bo...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>Gimme a f*$%ing break here!
i did that last post.
>I read this post and couldnt stop laughing!
that's because you are my target audience.
>who the heck are you people!?!
we people is who we are.
>This is so stupid.
it could be worse.
>We live in reality here!
lucky you.
>If you wan to be a real writer, IE, a published writer,
>you have to have a target market in mind.
no you don't.
>That will help the publisher choose you,
LOL
>and it will help deciede how to market your work,
>where to sell it, hardcover or paperback, price,
>design.
don't forget the lipstick and wig color.
>not to mention a suggested age,
ah yes, age. such an interesting demographic that is.
from one day old... to dead...
>so a child doesnt buy a hard core sex book, etc.
that's what cashiers like yourself are for.
>You dont publish a book with no target market,
you're confusing writing with marketing. duh.
>just sending it out there and hoping veryone will like it.
everyone? like it? heh. what a moron.
>BE REALISTIC AND STOP THIS MELLOW DRAMATIC DRIVEL!
yeah, i suppose that every writer, musician, director, etc.,
that you ever enjoyed or learned something from was
born in the last 100 years (or target marketed someone
like you -- sheesh... how blind)
[...]
Zero
"doyle" <dfdoyle @bellsouth.net> writes:
>"Angela St.Aubin" <bo...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
[...]
>> This is so stupid. We live in reality here! If you wan to be
>> a real writer, IE, a published writer, you have to have a
>> target market in mind. That will help the publisher choose you,
>
>Effective writing targets a specific group of readers.
effective writing. as opposed to what?
seriously. do you really believe that writing can only
be effective when it is written with a specific group
of readers in mind?
actually, it's an interesting question.
the more you think about it, the more
interesting it gets.
but, i don't believe it for a second.
OTOH, targeting a specific group of readers
can certainly be an effective writing strategy.
no question about it. it's just not necessary.
not in the least bit.
think about it a bit more... and i'm sure you'll
come to the same conclusion.
targeting a "specific" group is a self-perpetuating delusion.
i'll bet anything you want that _you_ have been effectively
communicated to... by most authors who did not have
anyone like yourself in mind (AT ALL) when they wrote
their stuff.
that's a fact. therefore, your concept is seriously flawed.
i'd love to debate this with you Donna, but... being as
i'm on your plonk list... um... i'm not on your target
read list. LOL.
in any case, i believe i've identified another BPS symptom.
(with intense clarity).
thanks for your unintended assistance in this regard.
(being as i seriously doubt that i am in your target
audience -- whatever the hell that is).
ok. for anyone still thinking about this...
(which would be anyone with any brains at all)
name your various target audiences...
go ahead... i dare you.
"a fact is a fact, regardless of any speculation."
-- $Zero...
Re: EgoFest 2002 (was: Re: Truth, lies and red noses)
news:<20020822045611...@mb-cp.aol.com>
I'll pay you cash money to write about SUCCESSFULLY MISSING THE TARGET
@bellsouth.net doyle
news:20020925024400...@mb-mi.aol.com...
> In article <9o6k9.1686$Ov6....@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>,
> "doyle" <dfdoyle @bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>
> >"Angela St.Aubin" <bo...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> [...]
>
> >> This is so stupid. We live in reality here! If you wan to be
> >> a real writer, IE, a published writer, you have to have a
> >> target market in mind. That will help the publisher choose you,
> >
> >Effective writing targets a specific group of readers.
>
> effective writing. as opposed to what?
>
> seriously. do you really believe that writing can only
> be effective when it is written with a specific group
> of readers in mind?
Yes.
> actually, it's an interesting question.
> the more you think about it, the more
> interesting it gets.
>
> but, i don't believe it for a second.
>
> OTOH, targeting a specific group of readers
> can certainly be an effective writing strategy.
> no question about it.
BINGO! Now go back again and read what I wrote.
> it's just not necessary.
> not in the least bit.
>
> think about it a bit more... and i'm sure you'll
> come to the same conclusion.
>
> targeting a "specific" group is a self-perpetuating delusion.
Whether consciously or unconsciously you, yourself, do it.
> i'll bet anything you want that _you_ have been effectively
> communicated to... by most authors who did not have
> anyone like yourself in mind (AT ALL) when they wrote
> their stuff.
The writer aims at an anonymous group that hopefully shares similar
interests or needs, or to convince the reader of something. (Writing to one
is called a letter. That also qualifies although it's a "market" of one.)
> that's a fact. therefore, your concept is seriously flawed.
Think about it this way. Substitute the word person or reader for market.
Do *you* write to everyone or everywhere in the same manner? It's the same
thing.
> i'd love to debate this with you Donna, but... being as
> i'm on your plonk list... um... i'm not on your target
> read list. LOL.
You're not on my plonk list, Zero. I just generally read your posts.
> in any case, i believe i've identified another BPS symptom.
> (with intense clarity).
>
> thanks for your unintended assistance in this regard.
> (being as i seriously doubt that i am in your target
> audience -- whatever the hell that is).
>
> ok. for anyone still thinking about this...
> (which would be anyone with any brains at all)
> name your various target audiences...
> go ahead... i dare you.
The target audience changes as necessary. Effective writing, or writing
effectively, requires a different style aimed at each specific "market":
With a grant proposal, the funding agency. A résumé, the potential
employer. Brochure, customers. Op-ed or an article, the publication's
readers. My son, cleaning up his room!
The last one, unfortunately, seems to be where my writing is least
effective.
--
Donna
-----------
Alan Hope
>"Where the Wild Things Are" gets my vote: Max, wild things, a
>rumpus, and home -- a place "... where someone loves him best of
>all."
>How can you beat that?
Good choice. And such pictures.
--
AH
Zero
"doyle" <dfdoyle @bellsouth.net> writes:
>"Zero" <shakub...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> "doyle" <dfdoyle @bellsouth.net> writes:
[...]
>> >Effective writing targets a specific group of readers.
>>
>> effective writing. as opposed to what?
>>
>> seriously. do you really believe that writing can only
>> be effective when it is written with a specific group
>> of readers in mind?
>
>Yes.
only? bzzzt.
>> actually, it's an interesting question.
>> the more you think about it, the more
>> interesting it gets.
>>
>> but, i don't believe it for a second.
>>
>> OTOH, targeting a specific group of readers
>> can certainly be an effective writing strategy.
>> no question about it.
>
>BINGO! Now go back again and read what I wrote.
i'm not arguing that targeting readers is ineffective,
especially if that's what you're doing on purpose.
i just said it wasn't necessary. at all. now go back
and read what i wrote.
if you're writing a business plan, or a political
speech, or any number of other things, targeting
your writing _may_ be wise. but it is certainly not
necessary for literary works, or even non-fiction stuff.
it is definitely not necessary for art.
>> it's just not necessary.
>> not in the least bit.
>>
>> think about it a bit more... and i'm sure you'll
>> come to the same conclusion.
>>
>> targeting a "specific" group is a self-perpetuating delusion.
>
>Whether consciously or unconsciously you, yourself, do it.
when i'm creating art or non-fiction, i have a
"target market" of two:
me, and anyone who isn't me.
(anyone who doesn't know what i mean)
that's it. no more. no less.
you may call that a "target market" if you want,
but it isn't one.
>> i'll bet anything you want that _you_ have been effectively
>> communicated to... by most authors who did not have
>> anyone like yourself in mind (AT ALL) when they wrote
>> their stuff.
>
>The writer aims at an anonymous group that hopefully
>shares similar interests or needs,
no. not necessarily.
>or to convince the reader of something.
no. not necessarily.
>(Writing to one is called a letter. That also qualifies
>although it's a "market" of one.)
agreed. usually.
>> that's a fact. therefore, your concept is seriously flawed.
>
>Think about it this way. Substitute the word person or reader
>for market. Do *you* write to everyone or everywhere in the
>same manner?
no.
>It's the same thing.
no, it's not. when i write usenet posts, for instance,
i write to my non-target market of "two."
sometimes i write about writing... but mostly it's misc. <g>
>> i'd love to debate this with you Donna, but... being as
>> i'm on your plonk list... um... i'm not on your target
>> read list. LOL.
>
>You're not on my plonk list, Zero.
am i confusing the Donnas again?
>I just generally read your posts.
i know you do. all my so-called plonkers generally read my posts.
it's a hoot.
(typos are a bitch, but often revealing).
>> in any case, i believe i've identified another BPS symptom.
>> (with intense clarity).
>>
>> thanks for your unintended assistance in this regard.
>> (being as i seriously doubt that i am in your target
>> audience -- whatever the hell that is).
>>
>> ok. for anyone still thinking about this...
>> (which would be anyone with any brains at all)
>> name your various target audiences...
>> go ahead... i dare you.
>
>The target audience changes as necessary.
i guess we must be talking about different things.
i'm talking about when one creates "art" or non-fiction.
sure, you _can_ create for a target market, like young
adults for instance, it just isn't one bit necessary.
you may prefer to do so, but it isn't necessary.
>Effective writing, or writing effectively, requires a
>different style aimed at each specific "market":
no, it doesn't. only if that's what you're aiming for.
writing effectively does not require any target market at all.
none.
>With a grant proposal, the funding agency. A résumé,
>the potential employer. Brochure, customers.
agreed, for those kinds of writings. but even those
perceived "market" targeting "boundries" can be
effectively ignored (if that's what you want to do).
but sure, business oriented writing should probably
take the market into account. mostly because
it's the kind of writing that is extremely transient.
throwaway. fishwrap.
>Op-ed for an article, the publication's readers.
well, look at it this way... for that kind of "readership"
target market writing perpetuates alienation. that's a fact.
also...
if "literature" is written for a target market, it soils itself.
same with any other kind of art.
again, i ask you to name one work of art that
you respect that was written for a target market
that included you. then name that target market.
for instance, pick any book from "the canon"
and name its target market. like... something
that Shakespear wrote, for instance. were you
in his target market? if so, name the market.
>My son, cleaning up his room!
>The last one, unfortunately, seems to be where my
>writing is least effective.
well... maybe you have to use the right fonts. LOL.
but seriously, that's a psychology issue.
what you have there is a conflict of interests.
anyway, bottom line on targeting your writing:
the less one perpetuates alienation, the better.
don't you agree? if not, why not?
are you an alienation junkie?
"All TV commercials should be targeted to
the types of people who lose their remote
controls and/or need batteries for same."
-- $Zero... <shakub...@aol.com>
Target Marketing 101
news:<20020925015108...@mb-mi.aol.com>
I'll pay you cash money to write about POETRY IN PERPETUAL MOTION
William Penrose
> Gimme a f*$%ing break here! I read this post and couldnt stop laughing! who
> BE REALISTIC AND STOP THIS MELLOW DRAMATIC DRIVEL!
Jeez, does everyone in your school talk like this? At the risk of
being mellow dramatic:
Zero usually asks completely inane questions, but this time I think
he's hit on a good one. I read it as:
1. You isolate a particular market segment (e.g., schoolteachers who
talk like sailors) and analytically (and even cynically) direct your
work at them, using some sort of demographic profile as a guide.
2. You define an imaginary or composite person, and imagine that you
are writing for that one person. A lot of actors and professional
public say that they do this, isolate a single person in the audience
and speak or play to them alone, even though they do not know the
person. I have heard writers say the same thing.
3. Write for yourself or for a single person you know. As a hobby, I
write stories intended only for the Warrior Queen, for example.
4. Just write to some foggy, undefined, and slippery 'somebody' out
there. Which sounds like some of the extended and tedious poetry that
has lately infected this group.
My suspicion is that a majority of people would do #2.
Most of my writing is reports and proposals, where the target audience
is tightly defined and known, and where I write in the almost certain
knowledge that it will never actually be read.
There's comfort in that.
Bill Penrose
The Apprentice
> In article <Tq5k9.3727$2T6.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "Angela St.Aubin" <bo...@sympatico.ca> writes:
> >so a child doesnt buy a hard core sex book, etc.
>
> that's what cashiers like yourself are for.
>
<g>
aj
@bellsouth.net doyle
> In article <r5lk9.11841$Ov6.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>,
> "doyle" <dfdoyle @bellsouth.net> writes:
Snips throughout. Please refer back for the uncut post:
[ . . . ]
> >You're not on my plonk list, Zero.
>
> am i confusing the Donnas again?
Nope.
> >I just generally read your posts.
>
> i know you do. all my so-called plonkers generally read my posts.
Typo. It should have read as I've said previously, "I just generally don't
read your posts."
> it's a hoot.
>
> (typos are a bitch, but often revealing).
They're a bitch, but seldom as revealing as one hopes.
[ . . . ]
> >The target audience changes as necessary.
>
> i guess we must be talking about different things.
Okay.
> again, i ask you to name one work of art that
> you respect that was written for a target market
> that included you. then name that target market.
>
> for instance, pick any book from "the canon"
> and name its target market. like... something
> that Shakespear wrote, for instance. were you
> in his target market? if so, name the market.
You're getting silly now. Perhaps you should read more about Shakespear.
He wrote for the *targeted market* of his day, the theater-goers attending
the plays he cranked out. And no, Zero, I'm not that old to have been
there.
[ . . . ]
Try the hoops you want me to jump through for your entertainment, on someone
else.
I've said what I wanted to say. This conversation is in a downward spiral.
I'm done.
--
Donna
------------
Zero
"doyle" <dfdoyle @bellsouth.net> writes:
>"Zero" <shakub...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "doyle" <dfdoyle @bellsouth.net> writes:
>> >I just generally read your posts.
>>
>> i know you do. all my so-called plonkers
>> generally read my posts.
>
>Typo. It should have read as I've said previously,
>"I just generally don't read your posts."
>
>> it's a hoot.
>>
>> (typos are a bitch, but often revealing).
>
>They're a bitch, but seldom as revealing as one hopes.
it's not an issue of hope, here. it's just what it is.
>> >The target audience changes as necessary.
>>
>> i guess we must be talking about different things.
>
>Okay.
>> again, i ask you to name one work of art that
>> you respect that was written for a target market
>> that included you. then name that target market.
>>
>> for instance, pick any book from "the canon"
>> and name its target market. like... something
>> that Shakespear wrote, for instance. were you
>> in his target market? if so, name the market.
>
>You're getting silly now.
i don't think that the above was silly it all. just difficult
for you to answer. feel free to use someone other than
Shakespear. use any author you respect. personally,
i don't think you can meet the challenge without looking
pretty silly. but don't feel so bad, because i don't think
that anyone could meet the challenge without looking
equally silly.
>Perhaps you should read more about Shakespear.
why? am i in his target audience?
>He wrote for the *targeted market* of his day, the
>theater-goers attending the plays he cranked out.
hmm... not a very well-defined target audience, is it?
not at all.
but, well, yeah... that's exactly what i said in my
original post when i identified _my_ "target" audience:
"what if you are simply writing to the
people who become your audience?"
-- $Zero...
[WR] Audience: Targeting Your Writing?
news:<20020924164053...@mb-cl.aol.com>
me and Willy... target market kindreds...
>And no, Zero, I'm not that old to have been there.
of course not. yet, i'm sure his writing is effective for you.
(to the degree that you can understand his dialect, anyway)
actually, even if you miss a lot of his intended meaning,
i'm sure that the phonetic beauty alone is effective
on various levels. intelect, emotion and spirit which
is well-presented can sometimes transcend actual
language.
>[ . . . ]
>
>Try the hoops you want me to jump through for your
>entertainment, on someone else.
no hoops... just mind-probing questions. you are
certainly under no obligation whatsoever to share
your grappling with them.
>I've said what I wanted to say.
yep.
>This conversation is in a downward spiral.
your end is, anyway. i agree.
>I'm done.
again, agreed.
"are YOU one of the Greatest Thinkers of
the 21st Century? if not, why the f/*\k not?
if so, whatcha been thinkin' bout lately?"
-- $Zero... <shakub...@aol.com>
Pabulum for Sapture [23] The Greatest Thinkers of the 21st Century
news:<20020903222643...@mb-fj.aol.com>
I'll pay you cash money to write about UNIVERSAL TARGETS
Alex Jay Berman
You guys DO know that they put out WtWTA action figures a year or so
back, yes? You should be able to get them at any good comic store.
Alex Jay Berman
Alan Hope
What an unspeakable idea.
--
AH
Towse
Action figures? Unspeakable? Yes.
The stuffed Wild Things and Max dolls, though, are lovable
things.
<http://www.prillycharmin.net/toys/a_wild.htm>
... and yes, the Sendak illustrations for the WHERE THE WILD
THINGS ARE are exceptional.
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
02:16:36 +0200, during the misc.writing Community News Flash Alan Hope
<ah...@skynet.be> reported:
Action figures are unspeakable ideas in general.
But many, many years ago you could get stuffed dolls of the characters
from the book. My nephew had one of Max in his costume and the hood
could be pulled off. When my nephew was being bad, the hood was on
Max's head. When my nephew as being good, the hood was pulled off.
Very helpful to his mother back then, since he was a pretty difficult
child.
(Ritalin also helped.)
--
The Chocolate Lady (Davida Chazan)
<davida @ jdc . org . il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"Almost anyone can be an author, the business is to collect
money and fame from this state of being." -- A.A. Milne
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my Published Poetry http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
Alan Hope
Doyle:
>>Perhaps you should read more about Shakespear.
>why? am i in his target audience?
>>He wrote for the *targeted market* of his day, the
>>theater-goers attending the plays he cranked out.
>hmm... not a very well-defined target audience, is it?
>not at all.
Like you'd know. Shakie defines his target audience quite clearly in
Hamlet, Act III Scene II, where Hamlet explains his view of stagecraft
to the First Player:
O, it
offends me to the soul to hear a robustious
periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to
very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who
for the most part are capable of nothing but
inexplicable dumbshows and noise: I would have such
a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant; it
out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it.
Earlier, in Act II Sc. II., he had given an idea of popular taste:
HAMLET I heard thee speak me a speech once, but it was
never acted; or, if it was, not above once; for the
play, I remember, pleased not the million; 'twas
caviare to the general: but it was--as I received
it, and others, whose judgments in such matters
cried in the top of mine--an excellent play, well
digested in the scenes, set down with as much
modesty as cunning. I remember, one said there
were no sallets in the lines to make the matter
savoury, nor no matter in the phrase that might
indict the author of affectation; but called it an
honest method, as wholesome as sweet, and by very
much more handsome than fine.
--
AH
Tuples
>From: Alan Hope ah...@skynet.be
>Date: 9/27/02 7:42 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <j42apu438hbms5kfn...@4ax.com>
that Dave Barry?
Is Brittney Spear related?
Bobspear
Zero
Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> writes:
>Zero said:
>
>Doyle:
>>>Perhaps you should read more about Shakespear.
>
>>why? am i in his target audience?
>
>>>He wrote for the *targeted market* of his day, the
>>>theater-goers attending the plays he cranked out.
>
>>hmm... not a very well-defined target audience, is it?
>
>>not at all.
>
>Like you'd know. Shakie...
heh. that's Neil Young's nickname. Shaky.
it's because he has epileptic fits or something...
and his singing/camera holding style...
>Shakie defines his target audience quite clearly in Hamlet,
>Act III Scene II, where Hamlet explains his view of
>stagecraft to the First Player:
>
>O, it
>offends me to the soul to hear a robustious
>periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to
>very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who
>for the most part are capable of nothing but
>inexplicable dumbshows and noise:
tearing passions to shreds? sounds like you, Alan.
is it irony? did Willy wear a wig?
>I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing
>Termagant; it out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it.
a word to the wise is sufficient?
(how do you say that in Latin?)
>Earlier, in Act II Sc. II., he had given an idea of popular taste:
>
>HAMLET
>
>I heard thee speak me a speech once, but it was
>never acted; or, if it was, not above once; for the
>play, I remember, pleased not the million; 'twas
>caviare to the general: but it was--as I received
>it, and others, whose judgments in such matters
>cried in the top of mine--an excellent play, well
>digested in the scenes, set down with as much
>modesty as cunning. I remember, one said there
>were no sallets in the lines to make the matter
>savoury, nor no matter in the phrase that might
>indict the author of affectation; but called it an
>honest method, as wholesome as sweet, and
>by very much more handsome than fine.
from caviare to the masses, to ice cream for crow.
"ice cream for show? no!
ice cream for crow.
that's it... that's it...
now you can go."
-- Captain Beefheart
[song: "Ice Cream for Crow";
from the album of the same name]
Troilus and Cressida
Act V, Scene II
TROILUS:
If beauty have a soul, this is not she;
If souls guide vows, if vows be sanctimonies,
If sancimony be the the gods' delight,
If there be rule in unity itself,
This is not she. O madness of discourse,
That cause sets up with and against itself!
Bi-fold authority! where reason can revolt
Without perdition, and loss assume all reason
Without revolt: this is, and is not, Cressid.
whatever.
in any case, i haven't seen anyone step up
to the plate and state in plain english a work
of art that they respect while naming the target
market (of which they qualify).
"aw, Shakespear, he's in the alleyway,
with his pointed shoes and his bells..."
-- Bob Dylan
[song: "Stuck Inside of Mobile
With The Memphis Blues Again";
album: "Blonde on Blonde" (1966)]
http://bobdylan.com/songs/memphis.html
I'll pay you cash money to write about TARGET MARKETS OF THE CANON
Lorrill Buyens
Sep 2002 04:21:30 GMT, they issued this poignant cry for help:
>in any case, i haven't seen anyone step up
>to the plate and state in plain english a work
>of art that they respect while naming the target
>market (of which they qualify).
_Alice in Wonderland_. Children or children-at-heart.
_Madame Bovary_. Erotica lovers.
_King Solomon's Ring_. Animal lovers.
--
"There can be only one Silly Vampire Programme, and 'It
is I, Count Homogenized' has had that title sewn up since
about 1978..."
- Dave Joll, in rec.arts.drwho
Zero
buy...@interlacken.com (Lorrill Buyens) writes:
>shakub...@aol.com (Zero):
>
>>in any case, i haven't seen anyone step up
>>to the plate and state in plain english a work
>>of art that they respect while naming the target
>>market (of which they qualify).
>
>_Alice in Wonderland_. Children or children-at-heart.
how do you target market to children-at-heart?
i'm not saying it's entirely impossible, but... seriously,
it just doesn't qualify as a "target market" in a financial
sense. not only that, most of us have qualified as children
at one time or another...
and the same goes for children-at-heart.
>_Madame Bovary_. Erotica lovers.
heh. name one person who doesn't love erotica.
>_King Solomon's Ring_. Animal lovers.
you may have hit on one, there. i'm not sure
(being as i have no idea about the book in
question). if it is truly only interesting or valuable
to animal lovers as a work of art, then, i suppose
that you may have actually named one.
"So-lip... sism...
Eu-phe... mism...
Pes-si... mism...
Pointilism...
Fla-ge-l-lism...
Ni-hil-ism...
Nega-ti... vism...
Posi-ti... vism...
Legal... ism...
Cyni... cism...
TouRism!...
TouRism!...
Con-serv-a... tism...
Liberal... ism...
Cen... trism...
[etc... ism]"
-- David Byrne, Robert Fripp &
The League of Gentlemen
[song: "Under Heavy Manners";
album: "God Save The King" etc.
(1980, 1985, etc.)]
I'll pay you cash money to write about ART LOVERS
Alan Hope
>in any case, i haven't seen anyone step up
>to the plate and state in plain english a work
>of art that they respect while naming the target
>market (of which they qualify).
You could start with Charles Dickens, who wrote many of his works for
magazine readers. Boz -- a hack by trade -- knew his market perfectly
well. Readers today are not that market, but they appreciate him all
the same.
Working back, consider all those writers and poets working in the days
when self-publishing was absolutely the way to go. A writer who failed
to take account of his market was not stuck, as now, with an advance
he would never earn out, but with a hefty bill from Ye Olde Printer.
Consider also the work of all those court composers and church
composers, who worked on commissions (like numerous fresco artists and
portraitists -- the Medici and the d'Este family were a target market
all to themselves, as were the courts of Spain, England and France,
and the Doge, and the electors of Prussia, and on and on). Mozart
would have been a fool to have written the Haffner Serenade (for a
wedding) in a way that Herr Haffner didn't take to. His work for the
opera, meanwhile, had to tickle (or since we're in Austria, tickl) the
fancy of Herr Scheckenader. Most other composers of that time and
thereabouts would only ever have their (non-commission, or as we say
"spec") work performed at subscription concerts, where the composer's
income depended on people buying tickets *in advance* to hear an
unknown work. That's like self-publishing, with your whole income
coming from one copy, or more likely, not.
You, with your insufferably narcissistic and Romantic view of creative
endeavour, overlook the fact that most of the Greats in the canon
worked this way. How could a genius like Mozart die penniless? How
could Bach die and take the vast majority (two-thirds, some say) to
the grave with him? The answer is that they were not Greats at the
time, not in the way we think now. And they certainly weren't
wild-eyed Artists such as you assume yourself to be. They were jobbing
professionals working in a market stuffed with jobbing professionals,
aware that disdain for the market spelled financial ruin, starvation
and a pauper's grave. All of which concentrate the mind wonderfully.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>>>not at all.
Gawd. How funny isn't that?
>Is Brittney Spear related?
No. Her name is Britney. See, I can come down to your level, but you
can't rise up to mine. Life so ain't fair, as I tell my dog, several
times a week.
--
AH
Zero
Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> writes:
>Zero said:
>
>>in any case, i haven't seen anyone step up
>>to the plate and state in plain english a work
>>of art that they respect while naming the target
>>market (of which they qualify).
>
>You could start with Charles Dickens, who wrote many of
>his works for magazine readers. Boz -- a hack by trade --
>knew his market perfectly well. Readers today are not that
>market, but they appreciate him all the same.
yeah, magazine readers. whew. quite the target market.
almost as targeted as book readers. especially in Dicken's
day.
this was as good as your last post describing Shakespear's
target market as people who appreciated his work. whoa.
care to get any more specific? i mean, to really define
the "target markets" of either of these gentlemen?
as to the readers of today not being in those respective
"target markets"... well... there's a reason for that.
it's called: Art.
>Working back, consider all those writers and poets working in
>the days when self-publishing was absolutely the way to go.
>A writer who failed to take account of his market was not stuck,
>as now, with an advance he would never earn out, but with a
>hefty bill from Ye Olde Printer.
um... if we go backwards, as you suggest, i think you'll find
that the idea of "target marketing" one's creations gets a bit
more absurd. the whole idea of targeting a market is a relatively
new concept when applied to works of art. they just didn't have
the business acumen of modern accountants and present-day
circus ring"masters" like Jerry Springer (or the people behind
Anna Nicole What'sHerTits).
>Consider also the work of all those court composers
>and church composers, who worked on commissions
>(like numerous fresco artists and portraitists -- the Medici
>and the d'Este family were a target market all to themselves,
>as were the courts of Spain, England and France, and the
>Doge, and the electors of Prussia, and on and on).
commissioned works run the gammit between crap and art
(depending upon how much artistic control the artist retains).
>Mozart would have been a fool to have written the Haffner
>Serenade (for a wedding) in a way that Herr Haffner didn't
>take to.
i don't know the particulars of that piece, (nor its history)
however, artists like Mozart are so gifted that patrons
select them _because_ of their gifts, therefore patrons
are apt to be naturally pleased with "the product." i highly
doubt that Mozart would have composed a depressing
funeral march for a wedding. but music is different
in that artistic way. it communicates viscerally, directly.
a work of literature is usually not written for an event.
unless you have data which suggests otherwise?
>His work for the opera, meanwhile, had to tickle
>(or since we're in Austria, tickl) the fancy of Herr
>Scheckenader.
do you think that Mozart's best work was the result
of attempting to tickle the fancies of various specific
patrons? or do you think it was mostly the result of
Mozart creating "Mozart's" music?
>Most other composers of that time and thereabouts would
>only ever have their (non-commission, or as we say "spec")
>work performed at subscription concerts, where the composer's
>income depended on people buying tickets *in advance* to
>hear an unknown work.
and why do you think that people were willing to buy tickets
"in advance"? because these composer's were so talented
at tickling the fancies of specific target markets? maybe.
i suppose that a crowd expecting to dance a waltz would
not appreciate The Sex Pistols... but... like i said, music is
a bit different in the expectation game. regardless, if Johnny
Rotten had to tailor his work to fit the Barry Manilow "market,"
i highly doubt that anyone would be happy.
actually, it might have been an interesting experiment. heh.
>That's like self-publishing, with your whole income
>coming from one copy, or more likely, not.
>
>You, with your insufferably narcissistic
my self-love is irrelevant here. and it certainly isn't narcissistic.
for every ounce of self-love, i have ten pounds of humility
stored away in my subconscious.
>and Romantic view of creative endeavour,
i'm a Realist Idealist® Artist, not merely a "Romantic."
i know full well how to produce marketable formula-istic crap.
i just choose not to. not interested. boring. not worth the
"minor" time sacrifice. i don't want to contribute to the crap
production line.
to the extent the Art is comprimised by financial influences
it suffers and is corrupted. just like Love itself.
that's not a "Romantic" notion, it's a reality.
>You, with your insufferably narcissistic
>and Romantic view of creative endeavour,
>overlook the fact that most of the Greats in
>the canon worked this way.
i disagree with that conclusion. i think it merely
appears that they worked that way. some certainly
may have. i have no idea. i don't know much of the
canon anyway. but i suspect that the "Greats"
did not create their work to a "target market."
besides, you have yet to define any specific
"target market" to persuade me* otherwise
* nor, it appears, yourself.
anyway, whether my own pursuit of writing without
financial influences is "greatness" is moot and
irrelevant. it's merely what _i_ choose to do with
whatever talent i may or may not have. heh.
>How could a genius like Mozart die penniless?
maybe he was not very good with money?
he probably made far more than the average
bloke of his day, no?
>How could Bach die and take the vast majority
>(two-thirds, some say) to the grave with him?
perhaps he was oblivious to it all? i have no idea.
>The answer is that they were not Greats at the time,
>not in the way we think now.
you mean, like Liberace? LOL.
look, i don't know what it's like over there in Belgium, but
"talent" and "creativity" is not valued too much here in
America. 90% - 95% of the crap that is produced and
marketed is pretty much talent-free. safe bets. nothing more.
>And they certainly weren't wild-eyed Artists such as
>you assume yourself to be.
gee, what else am i? i've lost all identity.
oops... there goes the 21st Century Renaissance.
>They were jobbing professionals working in a market
>stuffed with jobbing professionals, aware that disdain
>for the market spelled financial ruin, starvation and a
>pauper's grave. All of which concentrate the mind
>wonderfully.
my "contempt" for the current "artistic" market is a mere
sidebar. it has nothing to do with anything. i could no
more write a script for Bob Barker's _The Price Is Right_
than i could write campaign speeches for Geno and Wayne's
presidential bid in 2008.
show me to the pauper's grave. gleefully.
(with a shot of Scotch in my hand).
thankfully, there are still many people out there creating
works of Art for the 21st Century while resisting the big
bucks of the various Anna Nicole demographics.
(few though they be in comparison, sadly).
"Continue..."
-- Robert Fripp & The League of Gentlemen
[song: "Under Heavy Manners";
album: "God Save The King" etc.
(1980, 1985, etc.)]
I'll pay you cash money to write about THE PRICE BEING WRONG
The Apprentice
> In article <mp6hpuoq1tft3o8n9...@4ax.com>,
> Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> writes:
>
> >Zero said:
> >
> >>in any case, i haven't seen anyone step up
> >>to the plate and state in plain english a work
> >>of art that they respect while naming the target
> >>market (of which they qualify).
> >
>
<snip>
>
> i disagree with that conclusion. i think it merely
> appears that they worked that way. some certainly
> may have. i have no idea. i don't know much of the
> canon anyway. but i suspect that the "Greats"
> did not create their work to a "target market."
> besides, you have yet to define any specific
> "target market" to persuade me* otherwise
>
<snip>
i was under the impression that he _was_ defining target markets. much
of the work of the "greats" was commissioned work. their target
markets were specific people for specific events or places. while they
may have had incredible talent, they sold their talent to the highest
bidder in order to live. they worked within the "markets" of their
times. that much of their work has a wide appeal is due to their
genius, but not to their purity of intent with regard to money and
survival. michelangelo did not simply decide one day to paint the
sistine chapel ceiling for the sake of art, but because he was a great
artist, targeting his work to this particular market (some church
official who wanted the ceiling painted with a religious theme?)
didn't dilute his creativity.
anyway, you appear to be exempting the greats by virtue of their
greatness, saying that they were commissioned to work because of their
ability, but how does that change the fact that they were, indeed,
targeting their work to a specific purpose...be it to satisfy who
hired them, or to satisfy the terms negotiated for the work?
of course there have been creators who created for the sake of art
alone. some of the impressionists might be examples of such artists
who created without regard to money or markets. at the time, they had
no market. many people, and the established art community, thought
their stuff was crap. they were experimenting with the effects of
light and how to capture it in paint. i'm sure they would have loved
it if they could have made lots of money with it, but they were
willing to experiment regardless. but not all artists, great or
otherwise, have been willing to follow such a road. they hired
themselves out, and they produced what they were asked to produce,
albeit with the genius that made them stand out for generations after
they were gone.
i think that true genius shines through most especially when a work of
art can be created within constraints. it's much more likely that when
one is able to do as one pleases, what one pleases will turn out well
because one's heart is in it. but to produce something that is great
when one's heart isn't in it? when one has to follow rules? now that
takes a very special person.
aj
Zero
"The Apprentice" <a...@ajartworks.com> writes:
>"Zero" <shakub...@aol.com> wrote in message
did you notice that you snipped all the "writing" stuff?
>> i disagree with that conclusion. i think it merely
>> appears that they worked that way. some certainly
>> may have. i have no idea. i don't know much of the
>> canon anyway. but i suspect that the "Greats"
>> did not create their work to a "target market."
>> besides, you have yet to define any specific
>> "target market" to persuade me* otherwise
>>
><snip>
>
>i was under the impression that he _was_ defining
>target markets.
not for writers, no. as to musicians and painters,
he was merely defining assignments, not target
markets. someone comes to Mozart and asks for
a wedding march. that's not a target marget, it's
a theme. that's like a film-maker coming to David
Byrne and asking him to compose a soundtrack
for "The Last Emperor." that's not a target market,
it's a target theme. Byrne may have been constrained
within the "concept" of traditional Chinese music, but
that's a far cry from asking him to compose music
that would be appealing to people who eat at Chinese
restaurants. it's a target theme, not a target market.
big difference.
>much of the work of the "greats" was commissioned work.
you don't know that anymore than i do. no one does.
when applied to music, the "greats" were the people
who created the original "folk" styles. they may have
never even been known, let alone commissioned.
in painting, one cannot "commission" talent out of
thin air. no amount of money could buy the original
techniques of "the greats" because that kind of thing
cannot be brought into existence in the marketplace.
sure, someone could say:
"paint a portrait of my wife and i'll
give you 10 bars of goldplat latinum"
but... again, that's only a theme, not a market.
>their target markets were specific people for specific
>events or places.
because of the nature of painting and music, this may
or may not be true in so far as target "themes" being
requested, but it's certainly not the same as creating
Art for a target market.
anyway, Alan didn't succeed in naming any of these
so-called commissioned "target themes" as it pertains
to writing (let alone, "target markets").
>while they may have had incredible talent, they sold
>their talent to the highest bidder in order to live.
highly debatable. hence this thread.
anyway, if they simply sold their talents to the highest
bidder, they weren't Artists, they were Con-Artists.
real Art can't be bought, only rented. to the degree
that may have conned their patrons, real Artists only
sold their talent to the highest bidder in the sense that
they betrayed their patrons. (unless they created said
Art as collaboration).
>they worked within the "markets" of their times.
only indirectly.
>that much of their work has a wide appeal is due to their
>genius, but not to their purity of intent with regard to money
>and survival.
maybe. but if they altered their works of Art FOR the money,
they were either charlatans or liars (or too desperate to care).
>michelangelo did not simply decide one day to paint the
>sistine chapel ceiling for the sake of art, but because he
>was a great artist, targeting his work to this particular market
>(some church official who wanted the ceiling painted with a
>religious theme?) didn't dilute his creativity.
if Michelangelo was not a believer in his vision of the sistine
chapel, he could not have created real beauty. if i'm
not mistaken, i believe the pope commissioning him had
a much different perspective of God than Michelangelo.
the pope was startled and moved by Michelangelo's
portrayal of God as non-tyrannical.
>anyway, you appear to be exempting the greats by virtue
>of their greatness, saying that they were commissioned to
>work because of their ability, but how does that change the
>fact that they were, indeed, targeting their work to a specific
>purpose...be it to satisfy who hired them, or to satisfy the
>terms negotiated for the work?
if it did not satisfy them, it was not Art, it was prostitution.
if they created Art which communicated some beauty that
was not in their soul of souls, they were not great. (unless
you want to claim that they were great deceivers).
>of course there have been creators who created for the
>sake of art alone.
in the end, that is the only means of creating Art.
anything else is an artful lie.
>some of the impressionists might be examples of such
>artists who created without regard to money or markets.
>at the time, they had no market. many people, and the
>established art community, thought their stuff was crap.
>they were experimenting with the effects of light and how
>to capture it in paint. i'm sure they would have loved
>it if they could have made lots of money with it, but they
>were willing to experiment regardless. but not all artists,
>great or otherwise, have been willing to follow such a road.
Art cannot be created any other way. great or not.
>they hired themselves out,
they may have accepted cash or other things for their work,
but if they created anything which went against their own
vision and beliefs, they did not create Art, they created lies.
apples and oranges.
>and they produced what they were asked to produce,
they may have accepted requests for themes, but it could
not be Art unless their heart and/or mind was in it.
someone may consider a building to be a work of Art,
but that makes the beauty in the eye of the beholder,
not necessarily the builder.
>albeit with the genius that made them stand out for
>generations after they were gone.
repeating technique is not necessarily Art.
>i think that true genius shines through most especially
>when a work of art can be created within constraints.
there are always constraints. one cannot avoid constraints.
however, one _can_ avoid selling-out.
>it's much more likely that when one is able to do as one
>pleases, what one pleases will turn out well because one's
>heart is in it. but to produce something that is great when
>one's heart isn't in it? when one has to follow rules? now that
>takes a very special person.
agreed. but such a person is not an Artist.
"If the fool would persist in his folly
he would become wise."
-- Robert Blake
I'll pay you cash money to write about CASH MONEY
The Apprentice
yeah, cuz as i was reading your reply to alan (i hadn't read his post
yet), i thought of the same sort of examples he did with regard to the
above, but not so with the writers, so i just snipped it to what was
relevant to my thoughts.
>
>
> >> i disagree with that conclusion. i think it merely
> >> appears that they worked that way. some certainly
> >> may have. i have no idea. i don't know much of the
> >> canon anyway. but i suspect that the "Greats"
> >> did not create their work to a "target market."
> >> besides, you have yet to define any specific
> >> "target market" to persuade me* otherwise
> >>
> ><snip>
> >
> >i was under the impression that he _was_ defining
> >target markets.
>
> not for writers, no. as to musicians and painters,
> he was merely defining assignments, not target
> markets. someone comes to Mozart and asks for
> a wedding march. that's not a target marget, it's
> a theme. that's like a film-maker coming to David
> Byrne and asking him to compose a soundtrack
> for "The Last Emperor." that's not a target market,
> it's a target theme. Byrne may have been constrained
> within the "concept" of traditional Chinese music, but
> that's a far cry from asking him to compose music
> that would be appealing to people who eat at Chinese
> restaurants. it's a target theme, not a target market.
>
> big difference.
but i thought what you are describing IS a target market. you can't
say that you are going to appeal to a target market of people who eat
at a chinese restaurant because that would be silly. you will find all
sorts of people who eat at chinese restaurants. they aren't defined as
a particular type of people who will be expected to share the same
liking for a style of art or a genre of writing simply because they
eat chinese.
okay, so there are target markets such as age groups, or dog lovers,
or victorian/nostalgia lovers, that kind of thing. and perhaps the
artists/writers you speak of didn't have those particular markets in
mind, but michelangelo had to appeal to those who went to church. he
couldn't offend their sense of decorum with his depictions of biblical
glories. and shakespeare most certainly hoped to profit from his
endeavors, so he wrote things that he believed would sell. much like
movie makers do. the difference between him and many movie makers, was
the same difference between him and other playwrights of his day. he
was GOOD at it. others were/are not.
i thought your point was that great art/literature wasn't necessarily
created FOR a specific someone/s or something, but that great
art/literature is great even when no market spawned it. that it isn't
necessary to have a market in order to create something that will
transcend the mediocre and appeal to a vast majority of people. i
agree. but when you start using some of those great artists that you
have in mind as examples of this, it must be pointed out that they did
not create simply to create. they DID have a specific target in mind
of some sort. they had to meet specifications not of their making as
well as deadlines. that they were driven to create and thus became
musicians, writers, and artists rather than carpenters, tinkers and
blacksmiths doesn't change the fact that they hired themselves out to
do a job not of their devising.
>
>
> >much of the work of the "greats" was commissioned work.
>
> you don't know that anymore than i do. no one does.
>
> when applied to music, the "greats" were the people
> who created the original "folk" styles. they may have
> never even been known, let alone commissioned.
okay. you're leaving the "canon" folk behind, then, in this
discussion? but you were the one who brought up shakespeare. i was
simply thinking of those who, through schooling, i've been exposed to
as the "greats." those whose names have been passed down through
cartoons and such. just like shakespeare. <g>
>
> in painting, one cannot "commission" talent out of
> thin air. no amount of money could buy the original
> techniques of "the greats" because that kind of thing
> cannot be brought into existence in the marketplace.
> sure, someone could say:
>
> "paint a portrait of my wife and i'll
> give you 10 bars of goldplat latinum"
well, of course not. i don't see the relevance of this point, though,
to the argument at hand. talented or not, did they, or did they not,
sell their talents for what they could get? if they had to create to a
market, do you think they wouldn't have? they created to themes. to
commissions. to please the lady and the husband of the lady whose
portrait would be painted. do you think that if they had showed every
wrinkle in said lady's face, she would have allowed her husband to pay
for the portrait? are you saying that the lady and her husband were
NOT a market? they were the ones paying. that is the essence of a
market. "show me the money."
>
> but... again, that's only a theme, not a market.
>
>
> >their target markets were specific people for specific
> >events or places.
>
> because of the nature of painting and music, this may
> or may not be true in so far as target "themes" being
> requested, but it's certainly not the same as creating
> Art for a target market.
>
> anyway, Alan didn't succeed in naming any of these
> so-called commissioned "target themes" as it pertains
> to writing (let alone, "target markets").
when he mentioned dickens and magazine readers, you don't think that a
good example? i guess one would have to examine how magazine readers
would have been different than book readers in his day. price perhaps?
the style that generally appeared in magazines of that day? what sort
of stories made it in to magazines? i'm thinking now of louisa may
alcott, whose little women series of books took a lot from her own
life story. one of her characters, jo, supposedly represented her, and
jo was a hack for awhile. so was louisa. she wrote penny press stories
(i think that's the name, not sure). stories that appeared in cheap
pamphlets that the poorest of the poor could afford and read and
forget their troubles by. such stories weren't usually considered high
art. like the romances that i read today. granted some of them are
very well written, and i consider a couple of the writers that i've
read to be "true" writers in the sense of art, but on the whole, such
books are written to appeal to women who wish to escape from their
present existence for awhile and dream about what it would be like to
be beautiful and loved and made love to by a hunk. such might be the
types of audiences alan was referring to when he mentioned that
dickens was a magazine writer. but i don't know for sure. details
would be nice at this point. but he was pointing out that dickens
wasn't writing to create art. he was writing to receive a paycheck,
and he was writing what he knew would sell in the magazine that he was
writing for. thus, a market. but dickens was a GOOD writer. though he
wrote for a market, what he wrote was good and he wrote about things
that he wanted to write about such as the condition of mankind as he
saw it.
>
>
> >while they may have had incredible talent, they sold
> >their talent to the highest bidder in order to live.
>
> highly debatable. hence this thread.
sure, not all of them did. are we debating percentages here? you asked
someone to step up to the plate and show you target markets for great
writers. did they write for those target markets, or did they create
art for art's sake? some did one. some did the other. some did both.
alan gave examples of artists who hired themselves out and created for
the sake of their bosses. because they were good at what they did,
even when they hired themselves out, they created ART.
>
> anyway, if they simply sold their talents to the highest
> bidder, they weren't Artists, they were Con-Artists.
>
> real Art can't be bought, only rented. to the degree
> that may have conned their patrons, real Artists only
> sold their talent to the highest bidder in the sense that
> they betrayed their patrons. (unless they created said
> Art as collaboration).
>
> >they worked within the "markets" of their times.
>
> only indirectly.
>
>
> >that much of their work has a wide appeal is due to their
> >genius, but not to their purity of intent with regard to money
> >and survival.
>
> maybe. but if they altered their works of Art FOR the money,
> they were either charlatans or liars (or too desperate to care).
lying about what? they were people like you and me making an effort to
survive in a money based society doing what they loved doing. some of
them actually did make money. others didn't, but they continued their
art for the low wages they received because they couldn't do
otherwise. to be other than creators would be to deny themselves. so
just because they agreed to paint out the wrinkles they are less than
artists? liars? charlatans?
<g> you may have a point. but not one worth beating one's breast over.
>
>
> >michelangelo did not simply decide one day to paint the
> >sistine chapel ceiling for the sake of art, but because he
> >was a great artist, targeting his work to this particular market
> >(some church official who wanted the ceiling painted with a
> >religious theme?) didn't dilute his creativity.
>
> if Michelangelo was not a believer in his vision of the sistine
> chapel, he could not have created real beauty. if i'm
> not mistaken, i believe the pope commissioning him had
> a much different perspective of God than Michelangelo.
> the pope was startled and moved by Michelangelo's
> portrayal of God as non-tyrannical.
yeah, so? that was the genius, the talent, the ARTIST in michelangelo
being allowed to manifest itself. but it was still done for a market.
an ecclesiastical market. and that's all you asked someone to show. a
great artist and his/her market.
okay. that's the definition of an artist in your opinion. i don't
disagree. but it doesn't change the fact that willy shakespeare wrote
plays that he wanted to sell, which meant he had to appeal to a
"market" in the same way that screen writers today attempt to appeal
to a "market." perhaps when he wrote tragedies he was appealing to one
type of audience and when he wrote comedies to another. but that
doesn't necessarily mean he betrayed his art. your challenge was not
to prove who was an artist according to your definition but to name a
"great" and his/her market. that has been done.
> >it's much more likely that when one is able to do as one
> >pleases, what one pleases will turn out well because one's
> >heart is in it. but to produce something that is great when
> >one's heart isn't in it? when one has to follow rules? now that
> >takes a very special person.
>
> agreed. but such a person is not an Artist.
except when his heart sees the vision of the one who commissions the
work and is able to empathize and produce the other person's heart.
aj
Zero
"The Apprentice" <a...@ajartworks.com> writes:
>"Zero" <shakub...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> "The Apprentice" <a...@ajartworks.com> writes:
>> >it's much more likely that when one is able to do as one
>> >pleases, what one pleases will turn out well because one's
>> >heart is in it. but to produce something that is great when
>> >one's heart isn't in it? when one has to follow rules? now that
>> >takes a very special person.
>>
>> agreed. but such a person is not an Artist.
>
>except when his heart sees the vision of the one who
>commissions the work and is able to empathize and
>produce the other person's heart.
well, in that case, then... his heart IS in it.
anyway, just so you know, most of the previous post
was written while i was being rushed off the computer
so i was only able to "sketch" the responses. i wasn't
able to elaborate in the time i was "alotted," which
essentially was: "are you off yet?" poke poke.
heh... so, the points i was trying to make were majorly
incomplete and seemingly contradictory.
is that ironic, or what? it is to me.
why? because it proves my point completely.
i don't expect you to understand why, but,
suffice it to say that it does. yikes.
i could write a whole post describing why, but
instead, i'll just reply to the rest of your responses
and clarify what i meant by my sketches.
"too many notes..."
-- Emperor Joseph II
[reaction to Mozart's "Abduction from the Seraglio"]
I'll pay you cash money to write about NOT BEING ABLE TO PUT YOUR HEART INTO IT
Zero
"The Apprentice" <a...@ajartworks.com> writes:
in my usual bandwidth-hogging way,
i don't think i snipped any of Alan's post.
>i thought of the same sort of examples he did with
>regard to the above, but not so with the writers, so i
>just snipped it to what was relevant to my thoughts.
"but not so with the writers"? i'm not sure what you mean.
later in your post here, you defend his "writer" examples.
anyway, you appear to have omitted a "snip" up there
(the part that addressed the writers) while not omitting
your other snips.
[...omitted...]
"There was no way to get a copter in close,
so everybody was starving together.
The man at the top had long ago given up,
but didn't have nerve enough to climb down."
-- Captain Beefheart
[song: "The Thousandth and Tenth Day
of the Human Totem Pole"; from the album:
"Ice Cream for Crow" (1982)]
I'll pay you cash money to write about OMITTED OMISSIONS
Zero
"The Apprentice" <a...@ajartworks.com> writes:
>"Zero" <shakub...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> "The Apprentice" <a...@ajartworks.com> writes:
>> >"Zero" <shakub...@aol.com> wrote in message
[...]
>> >> i disagree with that conclusion. i think it merely
>> >> appears that they worked that way.
especially to those who wish to see it that way
>> >> some certainly may have. i have no idea.
>> >> i don't know much of the canon anyway.
>> >> but i suspect that the "Greats" did not
>> >> create their work to a "target market."
>> >> besides, you have yet to define any specific
>> >> "target market" to persuade me* otherwise
>> >>
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >i was under the impression that he _was_ defining
>> >target markets.
>>
>> not for writers, no. as to musicians and painters,
>> he was merely defining assignments, not target
>> markets. someone comes to Mozart and asks for
>> a wedding march. that's not a target market, it's
>> a theme. that's like a film-maker coming to David
>> Byrne and asking him to compose a soundtrack
>> for "The Last Emperor." that's not a target market,
>> it's a target theme. Byrne may have been constrained
>> within the "concept" of traditional Chinese music, but
>> that's a far cry from asking him to compose music
>> that would be appealing to people who eat at Chinese
>> restaurants. it's a target theme, not a target market.
>>
>> big difference.
>
>but i thought what you are describing IS a target market.
no. it's one of the other "constraints" i was speaking of.
it's the the constraint of style. David Byrne, in taking on
the "Last Emperor" soundtrack, was constrained by a
stylistic limit (and i'm assuming he had no objection at
all to this) in that the movie was set in such a way as
to benefit greatly from music that would reflect the
ancient society the movie was depicting. well, actually,
the ancient society was coming to an end in the movie,
but the music accomplished this expression beautifully
by using beautiful Chinese-styled music.
so anyway, it's not a target market at all. the target
market would be some demographic manifestation
of the movie-goers/viewers not the constrained stylistic
choices made in order to accomplish the task of
expressing the essence of the movie.
in other words, the movie-goers were not Chinese,
that's not why Chinese-styled music was selected
and composed. the audience wasn't the motivation.
the work iteslf was the motivation. the film.
>you can't say that you are going to appeal to a target
>market of people who eat at a chinese restaurant
>because that would be silly.
it was a rushed analogy, but i strill think it makes
the point i was trying to make. i suppose it needed
a bit of clarifying though to really "sell" it as an analogy.
heh. whoa. yikes. and all that.
>you will find all sorts of people who eat at chinese
>restaurants.
yep.
>they aren't defined as a particular type of people who will
>be expected to share the same liking for a style of art or
>a genre of writing simply because they eat chinese.
right.
that's what i meant by the selection of the Chinese-style music.
it was not chosen because most movie-goers would be fans
of Chinese music. they probably are now though, due to
the artful compositions of David Byrne (who did a beautiful
job selecting and composing music for the film).
the film-makers also artfully used a band of Chinese musicians
playing Guy Lombardo's famous New Year's song while the
Emperor's English tutor (Peter O'Toole) left the scene. of course,
that could have been merely historically accurate, but it was a
great touch regardless. artfully done.
"Bells. I can hear bells."
-- David Byrne, Robert Fripp &
The League of Gentlemen
[song: "Under Heavy Manners";
album: "God Save The King" etc.
(1980, 1985, etc.)]
I'll pay you cash money to write about OLD AQUAINTENCE BE FORGOT
Zero
"The Apprentice" <a...@ajartworks.com> writes:
>"Zero" <shakub...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> "The Apprentice" <a...@ajartworks.com> writes:
>> >"Zero" <shakub...@aol.com> wrote in message
[...]
>okay, so there are target markets such as age groups,
>or dog lovers, or victorian/nostalgia lovers, that kind of thing.
>and perhaps the artists/writers you speak of didn't have those
>particular markets in mind, but michelangelo had to appeal
>to those who went to church.
i suppose.
anyway, didn't almost everybody in Italy go to church at that time?
probably. therefore, the target "market" was not very targeted.
regardless, it's still a target _theme_, not a target _market_.
it's like a writer being given a topic. one would assume that
the church would not select a heretic to write a sermon.
but granted, since "the canvas" was a cathedral ceiling
and not a wall-hanging, i suspect that Michelangelo
was less inclined to indulge his every artistic whim.
but who knows... maybe he did.
he accepted the assignment knowing that the
context of its presentation was very specific.
but i still don't see that as a target "market."
especially since it was not a market at all.
it was a church. i'm assuming that Michelangelo
was a willing member of the church. if he was not,
then you have a point in his case. but it would
discredit him as an Artist.
>he couldn't offend their sense of decorum with his
>depictions of biblical glories.
do you think he wanted to? i don't. and not just
because of the "paycheck."
"there are some things
that money cannot buy...
for everything else...
there's Mastercard."
-- Mastercard Commercial
i suppose it's possible that Michelangelo was a complete fraud.
if so, he was a Con-Artist, not an Artist.
>and shakespeare most certainly hoped to profit from his
>endeavors, so he wrote things that he believed would sell.
did he compromise himself while doing so? did he write
below his abilities? did he withhold his opinions and beliefs
in order to avoid offending his audience? how so?
with Willy, it seems to me that he was rather artful in
the way he mocked everybody and everything. and he
did so with amazingly beautiful imagery. of course,
i'm not a Shakespearian scholar, so...
anyway, i'm sure he believed his stuff would sell.
after all, it was some rather interesting stuff.
what i don't believe is that the Art he created was
created with selling it in mind. no target market.
>and shakespeare most certainly hoped to profit from his
>endeavors, so he wrote things that he believed would sell.
did he restrain himself from writing things he didn't think would sell?
>much like movie makers do. the difference between him and
>many movie makers, was the same difference between him
>and other playwrights of his day. he was GOOD at it.
>others were/are not.
i wouldn't know about the others. i have never read or studied
any of them. who knows. i would certainly never form an
opinion of the playrights of his day based on merely what has
survived time (nor would i base my opinion on the opinions
of so-called experts). clearly, Shakespeare was quite talented,
that i cannot deny. as to the others... oblivia seems to have
triumphed for the most part.
hey, that's a great idea for a movie. a Shakespearian-quality
writer in Shakespearian times whose works got lost in the shuffle.
or whatever.
>i thought your point was that great art/literature wasn't necessarily
>created FOR a specific someone/s or something, but that great
>art/literature is great even when no market spawned it.
yep. sure. that's one of my points.
>that it isn't necessary to have a market in order to create
>something that will transcend the mediocre and appeal to
>a vast majority of people. i agree. but when you start using
>some of those great artists that you have in mind as examples
>of this, it must be pointed out that they did not create simply
>to create.
tell that to their bones.
>they DID have a specific target in mind of some sort.
i really don't see how you could possibly know this.
i suppose that technically speaking, you may have a point.
but the kind of "targets" you're talking about are so general
as to be irrelevant.
>they had to meet specifications not of their making as
>well as deadlines.
technically speaking, yes. for instance, if one is going
to paint an existing ceiling, one has specifications not
of one's making. but it's a minor point. and if one is to
paint at all, certainly one's death must be taken into
account as a deadline. heh. but again, it's another
"minor" point. kinda.
>that they were driven to create and thus became musicians,
>writers, and artists rather than carpenters, tinkers and
>blacksmiths doesn't change the fact that they hired
>themselves out to do a job not of their devising.
if they did as you say, they were Craftsmen and not Artists.
Artists don't hire themselves out to do a job not of their devising.
well, not as Artists, anyway. they may hire themselves out as
Craftsmen to do a job not of their devising, but they're not creating
Art when they do. unless they cheat. or willingly collaborate
with other Artists.
of course, everybody is a potential Artist... everyone has some
sort of Artistic talent within themselves waiting to be tapped,
so... the lines between Craft and Art can blurr quite a bit... but...
an Artist knows when he or she is creating Art (and when not).
some people may choose to fool themselves in that regard, but...
it's not a very fruitful delusion. (albeit, it may be an artful delusion
-- as well as a economically pleasing one).
"there are some things
that money cannot buy...
for everything else...
there's Mastercard."
-- Mastercard Commercial
I'll pay you cash money to write about YOUR "ARTCARD" CREDIT RATING
Zero
"The Apprentice" <a...@ajartworks.com> writes:
>"Zero" <shakub...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> "The Apprentice" <a...@ajartworks.com> writes:
[...]
>> >much of the work of the "greats" was commissioned work.
>>
>> you don't know that anymore than i do. no one does.
>>
>> when applied to music, the "greats" were the people
>> who created the original "folk" styles. they may have
>> never even been known, let alone commissioned.
>
>okay. you're leaving the "canon" folk behind, then,
>in this discussion?
no. that was an incomplete thought. some of the people
in the canon surely created their own styles as well
(probably many did so by combining various existing
folk styles).
>but you were the one who brought up shakespeare.
yep. and to my way of thinking, i'm not convinced at all
that he wrote for a target market other than english speakers
of his own intellect (or near 'bouts).
>i was simply thinking of those who, through schooling, i've been
>exposed to as the "greats." those whose names have been
>passed down through cartoons and such. just like shakespeare.
><g>
yeah. cartoons. <g> and many of the "greats" may have been
passed down and embraced for political and/or religious reasons
moreso than purely artistic reasons. i'm not educated enough in
the specifics to know to what extent this happened. nor do i really
care all that much, sadly.
>> in painting, one cannot "commission" talent out of
>> thin air. no amount of money could buy the original
>> techniques of "the greats" because that kind of thing
>> cannot be brought into existence in the marketplace.
>> sure, someone could say:
>>
>> "paint a portrait of my wife and i'll
>> give you 10 bars of goldplat latinum"
>
>well, of course not. i don't see the relevance of this point,
>though, to the argument at hand.
another incomplete sketch of mine, there. certainly one can
buy immitators of technique, that's always available in the
marketplace. what i meant was that just because someone
took requests as to subject matter does not mean that the
way the subject matter was rendered was for sale. in other
words, just because someone offered a painter money to
paint their wife did not mean that the patron would then
be grabbing a brush and making corrections or going
off on their own tangents. interestingly, some modern
Artists may even encourage this sort of thing, and to the
extent that they allow it for the purpose of the Art itself,
it works. but that's Art on a whole 'nother level.
it's not even a matter of whether an Artist would create
a flattering portrait or not. it's a matter of whether an Artist
is being true to themselves. if they are comfortable with
any sort of artistic compromise simply for the money, i
just don't see how anyone can take them seriously. really.
of course, taking it to its extreme, creating Art simply FOR
the money could actually be another legitimate Artform.
but again, that would be Art on a whole other level.
kinda like Andy Warhol painting Campbell Soup cans.
(which i find interesting on many levels).
what's really odd is that the same people who would readily
accept the idea that Shakespeare, et al, were creating Art for
the money would be the first to dismiss someone like Andy
Warhol as pure crap. that's part of what makes someone like
him such a genius.
>talented or not, did they, or did they not, sell their talents for
>what they could get?
selling their endproducts is not the issue. altering them
for money (or some other artistically irrelevant thing) is the
issue.
>if they had to create to a market, do you think they wouldn't have?
i have no idea. if they did, they shouldn't have.
i know i wouldn't. not as an Artist, anyway.
i certainly wouldn't put my name on anything i did for the money.
>they created to themes. to commissions. to please the lady and
>the husband of the lady whose portrait would be painted.
to the extent that they did this from the heart is fine with moi.
but if they did it for the money, i cannot respect them.
empathize? sure. respect? no.
>do you think that if they had showed every wrinkle in said
>lady's face, she would have allowed her husband to pay
>for the portrait?
again, it goes to motive. welcome to _Artists on Trial_. <g>
>are you saying that the lady and her husband were NOT
>a market?
that's entirely up to the Artist. no one else.
(unless the Artist is operating under delusions).
>they were the ones paying. that is the essence of a
>market. "show me the money."
and if the money was the motive for some alteration, or
omission, well... they would be found "guilty as charged"
of not being an Artist. unless, of course, accepting money
for alterations or omissions was part of their actual Art.
high art.
"If the fool would persist in his folly
he would become wise."
-- William Blake (not Robert Blake)
I'll pay you cash money to write about LOW ART
The Apprentice
> In article <ane91s$dfv0l$1...@ID-39564.news.dfncis.de>,
> "The Apprentice" <a...@ajartworks.com> writes:
> >yeah, cuz as i was reading your reply to alan
> >(i hadn't read his post yet),
>
> in my usual bandwidth-hogging way,
> i don't think i snipped any of Alan's post.
nope. which is why i often don't read the posts you reply to unless it
appears you did snip something.
>
> >i thought of the same sort of examples he did with
> >regard to the above, but not so with the writers, so i
> >just snipped it to what was relevant to my thoughts.
>
> "but not so with the writers"? i'm not sure what you mean.
>
> later in your post here, you defend his "writer" examples.
i hadn't thought of any writers when i began reading, but i did think
of musicians and artists who created for their patrons before i
reached reading alan's examples. i had started to reply before
reaching that point, but thought better of it, and once seeing his
examples, i snipped to them to emphasize my thoughts.
>
> anyway, you appear to have omitted a "snip" up there
> (the part that addressed the writers) while not omitting
> your other snips.
>
> [...omitted...]
you belong to "snip watch" don't you? sweetheart, my mind no longer
operates at the same level as it did even two years ago. i'm
forgetful. i get confused. i overlook things. i also find i do it much
more frequently within these lengthy give and takes than i once did
because i have also learned not to care so much. life's too short and
you have been a wonderful example of simply speaking on the fly and
fixing mess ups later. anyway, that also applies to messed up snips,
or unintentional ones, or even intentional ones that work in my favor.
<g> seriously, if i snipped something i shouldn't have because it has
a bearing on this discussion and then failed to notate it, it was
simply because i wasn't paying close attention. and i'm too tired
right now to check and see just exactly what you're talking about. i'm
operating on two hours of sleep and will shortly be heading for bed.
depending on what all you had to say that is. when i first saw your
series of replies, i considered saving the reading of them for
tomorrow.
aj
The Apprentice
> anyway, just so you know, most of the previous post
> was written while i was being rushed off the computer
> so i was only able to "sketch" the responses. i wasn't
> able to elaborate in the time i was "alotted," which
> essentially was: "are you off yet?" poke poke.
>
> heh... so, the points i was trying to make were majorly
> incomplete and seemingly contradictory.
not by the end of the post they weren't. but i have decided to try
answering as i read in order to get my first reactions down instead of
trying to be so careful about my words, so that's why my post didn't
have more snips in it than it might otherwise have had. if i had
simply read to the end and then replied, there wouldn't have been
quite so much argument all through it.
>
> is that ironic, or what? it is to me.
>
> why? because it proves my point completely.
>
> i don't expect you to understand why, but,
> suffice it to say that it does. yikes.
well, i'd like to understand. you were under constraints. your work
suffered as a result, causing a finished product that was incomplete
and contradictory, and that proves that writing to your target market
of you and (shoot, i forgot, you and someone else, anyone else?) when
under outside constraints that don't allow you to put your heart into
it causes you to become a charlatan? <g>
>
> i could write a whole post describing why, but
> instead, i'll just reply to the rest of your responses
> and clarify what i meant by my sketches.
okay.
ja
tired. i'm just so tired.....
aj
The Apprentice
but it's only art if byrne's heart was in it all along? if he was one
hundred percent behind every music decision made? what if he wasn't?
yet here you are, obviously impressed, considering it a work of art.
i think we're discussing levels of art here, and that you place a
higher value on that which is created completely from the soul without
any limitations that the soul isn't willing to embrace. while you ask
how can we know that the greats were really appealing to a market
rather than simply using whatever outlets they found to express
themselves without regard to any possible market, succeeding because
they had talent, i would ask how can you know they didn't compromise
when you look upon, or hear, or read their "works of art?"
does the motivation have any significance on the art itself and how it
may impact those who experience it, or does the significance really
lie in the artist and what he might otherwise have accomplished had he
not compromised?
aj
The Apprentice
it was the vatican coffers paying for it, wasn't it? how much more
marketed can you get?
> it was a church. i'm assuming that Michelangelo
> was a willing member of the church. if he was not,
> then you have a point in his case. but it would
> discredit him as an Artist.
>
>
> >he couldn't offend their sense of decorum with his
> >depictions of biblical glories.
>
> do you think he wanted to? i don't. and not just
> because of the "paycheck."
i'm sure he would have loved to have painted naked women, but THAT
wasn't allowed, so he used men as his models for the women he painted.
i'll bet that right there went against his artistic beliefs.
> "there are some things
> that money cannot buy...
> for everything else...
> there's Mastercard."
> -- Mastercard Commercial
>
>
> i suppose it's possible that Michelangelo was a complete fraud.
> if so, he was a Con-Artist, not an Artist.
>
>
> >and shakespeare most certainly hoped to profit from his
> >endeavors, so he wrote things that he believed would sell.
>
> did he compromise himself while doing so? did he write
> below his abilities? did he withhold his opinions and beliefs
> in order to avoid offending his audience? how so?
i don't know. you just asked for a target market, not an analysis on
the souls of these artists who wrote/created for them. <g>
>
> with Willy, it seems to me that he was rather artful in
> the way he mocked everybody and everything. and he
> did so with amazingly beautiful imagery. of course,
> i'm not a Shakespearian scholar, so...
>
> anyway, i'm sure he believed his stuff would sell.
> after all, it was some rather interesting stuff.
> what i don't believe is that the Art he created was
> created with selling it in mind. no target market.
but how do _you_ know _this_ any more than anything i postulate as
probable? it's all guesswork. you are allowing your sense of what
feels/seems/intuits right as your measure of what must be true. what
if it isn't?
>
> >and shakespeare most certainly hoped to profit from his
> >endeavors, so he wrote things that he believed would sell.
>
> did he restrain himself from writing things he didn't think would
sell?
i don't know. do you? what if he did?
>
> >much like movie makers do. the difference between him and
> >many movie makers, was the same difference between him
> >and other playwrights of his day. he was GOOD at it.
> >others were/are not.
>
> i wouldn't know about the others. i have never read or studied
> any of them. who knows. i would certainly never form an
> opinion of the playrights of his day based on merely what has
> survived time (nor would i base my opinion on the opinions
> of so-called experts). clearly, Shakespeare was quite talented,
> that i cannot deny. as to the others... oblivia seems to have
> triumphed for the most part.
you have a point. my bps is acting up again. <g>
<snip>
> >that they were driven to create and thus became musicians,
> >writers, and artists rather than carpenters, tinkers and
> >blacksmiths doesn't change the fact that they hired
> >themselves out to do a job not of their devising.
>
> if they did as you say, they were Craftsmen and not Artists.
>
> Artists don't hire themselves out to do a job not of their devising.
> well, not as Artists, anyway. they may hire themselves out as
> Craftsmen to do a job not of their devising, but they're not
creating
> Art when they do. unless they cheat. or willingly collaborate
> with other Artists.
>
> of course, everybody is a potential Artist... everyone has some
> sort of Artistic talent within themselves waiting to be tapped,
> so... the lines between Craft and Art can blurr quite a bit...
but...
> an Artist knows when he or she is creating Art (and when not).
> some people may choose to fool themselves in that regard, but...
> it's not a very fruitful delusion. (albeit, it may be an artful
delusion
> -- as well as a economically pleasing one).
so basically, the point is artists are what you say they are, and we
have no way of knowing if the markets we think they were targetting
had anything to do with the art they actually created. that it met the
target market is simply a plum in their pockets for doing what they
wanted to do in the first place?
okay. i have no further input. what you say feels right. i can't
really prove anything either way because i have no way of seeing into
the heart of any of them so...
aj