... Only the 1960s? Think you're a millennium or so out there.
What's precedent ever done for us?
I'd argue about the difference between selling art as a commodity and diffusing the artistic process by letting market research get in the way, but, you know, prior to the 1800s the vast majority of art was created to please whoever commissioned it, artistic integrity be damned, so... The idea that the artist should be communicating a message rather than tailoring for commercial interests is relatively new.
What I object to with the first sentence is that implies a dichotomy between making profitable works and making art when no such dichotomy exists.
[[red:I'm glasses.]]
This article is overtly negative. If you read up on Hollywood movies, some of the best endings came about this way. I added the blurb at the end, but this still could use a reworking to make it less of a complaint page.
Edited by Sporkaganza Always, somewhere, someone is fighting for you. As long as you remember them, you are not alone.
I take issue with the opening sentence. Art has been a commodity to be bought and sold since at least the 1960's.
Edited by BlackVelvet Hide / Show Replies