Originally Posted by Hraesvelg
|
What I'm saying is...eschew the nebulous "they" you refer to. Form your own opinions and their feelings be damned. If you're lamenting the lack of commercial success, there are very, very few artists that find it in their lifetime. And those that do, like Thomas Kinkade, are oft times complete hacks. Create art not for the sake of fame and success, but because it calls out to you "I must be made."
|
That kinda makes sense, except I've never really felt like it. If I'm sad, I'll say, "I'm sad." I won't say, "I weep like the springs of the evergreen glade" or something like that.
Originally Posted by Ralath
|
I don't think that's true. If it were true, we wouldn't have a term such as "one-hit wonder" which basically describes someone who has only produced one work of great value. And I think the phenomenon you're describing is part of the general masses that take things at face value. But even then, I think there are more discerning eyes out there. I mean, that's why there is criticism. If everything that was "so and so's work" was good, then the critic would have no job.
|
The critic would have a job because he's gushing out with pleasure at the work of art.
Originally Posted by Ralath
|
But people don't look at art of any sort just for the art alone. They look at the story behind the art and the context of the art itself. Otherwise, it'd just be a competition to see who could draw the most realistically. Usually, the most famous paintings are those with interesting context and complex themes and people like being challenged with these things.
|
When I run in a 100m dash, the winner is judged by who came first i.e who ran fastest. It's not judged by the fact that 1 of the sprinters lost a relative that morning and is therefore under emotional duress or by the fact that another of the sprinters ran more "elegantly". Similarly, art should also be judged by art alone.