In a message dated 7/26/2000 11:23:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
natashavita@earthlink.com writes:
> I agree that Shakespeare’s uncanny ability to reach a broad audience
> works beautifully, I do not believe that there is a cultural
> valve on the quality of creative talents stemming from a person’s
> financial status. This romanticizes artists and places emphasis
> on the struggling artist as a trophy rather than evaluating the
> work product.
>
Not sure what you mean here by cultural valve, it's not a term I am familiar
with.
I must apologize for not being clear. I wasn't trying to make a correlation
between lack of finance and art. Quite the opposite in fact. Making money is
good for art, I say.
What I was trying to say is that financial incentive (making art that must
sell to exist) is a good motivator for quality. Having to put one's art on
the market will often induce productivity as well, and prolificacy. The show
must go on....
Financial stuatus (if you mean being rich) can only help one's art to be
seen, and to be promoted. I think struggling artist is a cliche, a bad one.
Yet the creative process is often fraught with financial perils, take the
example of film making, where the money considerations are heavy indeed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:14 MDT