Engine |
06-16-2010 07:19 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
(Post 884177)
Sure. But I'm perfectly happy to simply have an occupation that I not only enjoy but I feel is "my calling" in a way.
|
And that's really good. I envy everybody who makes real money doing what they feel compelled to do naturally, especially in the arts. If you think about it, that could be more satisfying than making ridiculous amounts of money just because you get noticed by the gallery crowd or whatever. But I do think a lot of creative people get crushed a bit by the realization that they must produce things they have little to no interest in to make a living
Quote:
I see your point, but I think adapting to your audience has been a part of all forms of art since people first started making art. Michelangelo knew that when he was painting the Sistine Chapel. James Brown knew it when he was making music to move butts. This notion that artists should make "pure" art, isolated from the influence of their audience is a pretty recent invention and is kind of at odds with the role of art over the millennia of human history.
|
y'know I thought about Rembrandt and his school as I was typing what I said. I don't think that his students were not making 'pure' art (don't believe in the concept of purity in general) and I don't romanticize art all that much. Still, I bet a lot of Rembrandts' student wanted to paint something really cool and imaginitive instead of what they had to paint just to make enough money to subsist.
I wonder if cave paintings were made for profit by cavemen who really wanted to paint something different that we have never seen or even imagined
|