Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
Do they go together? If you are making art for profit as opposed to self expression, is it then art? That is, if you are making it with someone else's - an imagined other's - sense of aesthetics in mind - to appeal rather than to please one's own tastes - is it art? Does it lose something in the process? Can artists be both business people and artists? Where do the two merge? That is, in order to be successful, the more businessperson you are - producing and marketing a commercial product, do you concurrently compromise the art? Is there an element of this in famous art? Art that is not famous because of the quality of the art but because of the ability of the artist as a businessperson? How much? Obviously fame is not a measure of great art (as the work of numerous pop artists demonstrates). Is it even a measure? When?
-------------------- Computer games don't affect kids. I mean if Pacman affected our generation as kids, we'd all be running around in a darkened room, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.
"Being bitter and hateful is like drinking a vial of poison and hoping the other person gets sick" FreakQLibrium
"My motto from here on out is: If someone or something (including me) in my life is conducting themselves in such a way that they can be seen on Jerry Springer, it's time to take out the garbage!!! When you stop taking their behaviour personally and see their antics as a true reflection on their character, it becomes absolutely nauseating." Anon. on abusive relationships.
Art doesn't have to appeal to the highest possible number of people. That's a misconception, backed up by governments and the art establishment. Where art used to be about criticising society, it's now become a closed circuit with "experts" - curators mostly - who determine what's "hot" and what's "not". A lot of succesful artists nowadays are just paying lip service to the art establishment, which isn't about innovation anymore. It's about selling. Producing highly digestable pulp for the masses. A lot of new artists don't get a chance because they don't fit the picture of mass-production art: record labels don't take any chances on new musical concepts, because they might not be profitable. When a bland, poppy band wants to sign up and show marketing potential, they get a deal. Bands like Queen wouldn't have been able to get a record label if they'd started now.
Damn that A. Hole Warhol.
-------------------- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.