RE: Re: Hi-Low, or Art for Money (Was) Steven King's The Plant

Date: Wed Jul 26 2000 - 12:09:47 MDT

Just a few thoughts:

Lee Daniel Crocker writes:

>>Shakespeare'(snip)wasn't afraid to go for the cheap laugh of
a dirty joke or a pun where needed, and his brilliant use of
language and poetic form wasn't to challenge his audience's mind,
but simply to entertain them.<<

Alternatively, I think that the writing of Shakekspeare both
challenges and entertains.

Nadia writes:

>This multilevel inventiveness - where people of all levels are
indulged - to the extent that they will pay - is, indeed, the
most brilliant type of art (snip)<.

I like indulging multi-levles of interplay, but I think that
statement might digitizes art into a corner. I tend to steer
away from giving absolutes on art -:)

>To be more blunt about it, I think that "really good art" often
evolves out of financial need, (snip<

I agree that Shakespeareís 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 personís
financial status. This romanticizes artists and places emphasis
on the struggling artist as a trophy rather than evaluating the
work product.

(Iím not sure who wrote this clever sentence:)
>>>He juggled the language like a street performer juggles torches,
as deftly and for the same purpose. /That/ is the highest form
of art.<<

Okay, quality fiction perhaps. I have trouble seeing complex
word structures in non-literary arts or getting into high/low
modifiers. But the metaphor works nicely.

>IMO, today's market can endure a lot more crap, as long as it's
packaged well. MacStevenKing burgers would sell great, I bet,
if you put a couple action figures of N'Sync with the Happy Crappy
Scary McMeal. Byte on that.<

The graphic design used for packaging is art I really love a
lot. Some of my favorite designs are packaging. Iím not a fan
of Steven King, but I donít have a problem with his art or whether
he uses a template for writing. NíSync bothers me, but they
are artists and have the right to do what they want.

>>>The term 'art' is often and variously described as an appeal
to aesthetics, a reflection or mutation of nature, or a work
of the imagination designed to affect the sense of beauty.

    Challenging or appealing to one's sense of aesthetics is
a far cry from simple entertainment.<<<

>Yes, but it takes education, refinement and a desire to learn
those standards; not everyone will take the time to do so. In
our constantly changing world view, we are drawn back time and
time again to older, more conservative art forms which do not
really challenge us as much as they used to.<

Contrarily, I have been challenged enormously by varied periods
and genres of the arts and the artists who expressed themselves
during those times.

>Progressive art rarely has financial success at first, and large
project often fail. Take the example of rock bands who bring
orchestras on tour with them and go broke. Then they end up suing
Napster ;o)<

Progressive art often has financial success. Assuming otherwise
plays into the artist syndrome. Often progressive artistic projects
are not produced under the disciplinary category of the arts,
but produces broad-minded and advanced artistic conceptions.
 The fact that such artistic conceptions may be produced in other
fields may have little historical significance because sooner
or later it will be referenced as "state of the art."

"The best defense is a cultural offense."

Sent using ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html )
The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:14 MDT