Gillian Savage comment The meaningful debate is about WHICH 'artists' should
be paid, and HOW MUCH should they get.
The keyword in that sentence is 'worthless' -- what I consider worthless,
you may consider valuable. My impression is that market forces indicate that
most people do, indeed, consider most artistic production to be worthless.
Chris Hayden replies: Let every heart say amen
>That's why the producers need to huddle together in sheltered workshops and
>proclaim each others value.
Chris Hayden inquires; bUT if they/we do that how do we then proclaim it to
the world, or do we forgo that goal? These thoughts come after attending a
reading in the Millstone Art Gallery here last night--fine food, fine music,
fine poetry, fine art--same faithful few--literallly the same familiar faces
I see when I attend a reading anywhere in this town wherever it's held.
Are we like the Monks of the Dark Ages, huddling in our monastaries,
preserving the art of poetry until some time when it will emerge once more?
Rapsters seem to know what their audience wants and what they are prepared
to pay for. My experience of 'artists' of various persuasions is that they
are much more inward focussed - they serve the inner muse.
Chris Hayden muses: I think of the bebop artists at Minton's in the early
40's and the Beats in their early days. Outcasts. Isolated. Broke. I think
of Cecil Taylor whose stuff was so far out he couldn't get any jobs, who
held concerts for himself in his loft. Maybe such poverty and isolation is
the fate of those who are blazing new trails for the language, coming up
with new forms, being experimental. Maybe anybody creating art with the
capital A ought to find some other means to support himself--as many do.
Why do I write? To bring life.
Chris Hayden adds: To others as well as ourselves, and leaves off with
yours, the following:
Creative production touches the mysterious.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
|