12-13-2005, 07:53 PM
Hi,
Throughout history, art has been made because the artist needed money. Check out the 'sponsors' of art in the middle ages and the Renaissance. They didn't give the artists money for the hell of it. They paid talented people for decorations in their churches and their homes. Look at how much art is portraits -- done for he money. Shakespeare didn't give a damn about creativity, he wanted a full house because he mostly worked on shares. Dumas (father and son) wrote their plays for money and their prose at so much per word. Bach's job was to create a new organ piece for each week's mass, just as the rector's job was to come up with a new sermon. And if either failed, there was no one to pass a plate to. Scott gave us Waverly and Ivanhoe because he needed the money and that was the only thing he was capable of doing at the time.
That goes on to modern times, with RAH writing because his physical condition didn't allow him to take another job. Money is why bands perform, otherwise there wouldn't be cover charges. Movie theaters charge admission because everybody in the film food chain wants their bite.
Indeed, typically good art is made for money -- it must satisfy both the artist and the patron. Art "for its own sake" is usually worthless crap that no one but the artist likes, and often not even the artist likes it.
--Pete
eppie,Dec 13 2005, 01:01 AM Wrote:Music (lyrics) and other forms of art are made because the artist feels like making it. Well, it should be like that.From an incorrect assumption, the only valid conclusion is that the assumer is an ass.
Art should not be made because of the money.
[right][snapback]96884[/snapback][/right]
Throughout history, art has been made because the artist needed money. Check out the 'sponsors' of art in the middle ages and the Renaissance. They didn't give the artists money for the hell of it. They paid talented people for decorations in their churches and their homes. Look at how much art is portraits -- done for he money. Shakespeare didn't give a damn about creativity, he wanted a full house because he mostly worked on shares. Dumas (father and son) wrote their plays for money and their prose at so much per word. Bach's job was to create a new organ piece for each week's mass, just as the rector's job was to come up with a new sermon. And if either failed, there was no one to pass a plate to. Scott gave us Waverly and Ivanhoe because he needed the money and that was the only thing he was capable of doing at the time.
That goes on to modern times, with RAH writing because his physical condition didn't allow him to take another job. Money is why bands perform, otherwise there wouldn't be cover charges. Movie theaters charge admission because everybody in the film food chain wants their bite.
Indeed, typically good art is made for money -- it must satisfy both the artist and the patron. Art "for its own sake" is usually worthless crap that no one but the artist likes, and often not even the artist likes it.
Quote:And lately we even pay all kinds of talentless, drunk, doped up artist milions for some stupid record teh made, just because MTV is really good in making commercials for them. To me that is theft, it is using the ignorant youth to make money.Separating ignorant suckers from their money is a time honored tradition. If you are included in that "we" then you have my condolences for your intellectual weakness. If you are not included, then you've no right to complain.
Quote:Mind you, when everybody was stgill taping music or borrowing it from friends we did not have these problems? Why do we have them now? If you ask me because of the increasing power of the record business and the money that goes around.Sorry, I have neither the time nor the energy to decipher this paragraph. But one thing I think you said is crap. You imply that intellectual theft was recently criminalized. Actually, that condition predates computers and copiers by a good long while.
Everybody knows that books, music, lyrics, even painting can be copied. It used to take to much time to copy a book, but should it just because it is easier now, be a crimninal offense?
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?