>My impression is that market forces indicate that >most people do, indeed, consider most artistic production to be worthless. >That's why the producers need to huddle together in sheltered workshops and >proclaim each others value. That's an extremely cynical comment. We've all seen rotten theatre, Gillian, and me more than most. However, I've also seen brilliant small productions which hardly anyone has attended... serious and beautiful and moving pieces of art, made by serious, intelligent and committed people. I saw an absolutely amazing production of Heiner Muller's Medeamaterial many years ago, made by the Attic Theatre Company - went down like a lead balloon here and hardly anyone saw it. A few things at La Mama, attended by an audience of say 12. I've seen horrible theatre, badly written, badly designed, badly directed and badly performed, which has been packed out. I've also seen great theatre packed out... what I'm saying is audience attendance is no reliable indicator of anything. Methinks there are other ways of valuing and evaluating art. That is, if it matters as a way of responding to the world we live in. >Whenever the issue of $$$ enters the question, you have to look beyond >deemed intrinsic worth and reflect upon the effects of market forces. >Artists who ignore this context are no different from 'flat earthers' You mean, like those wellknown flat earthers Samuel Beckett, or Cesar Vallejo, or William Blake. Here in Australia we have the most basic and crude as the standard evaluation - the artist as small business, and "success" writ in dollars. It doesn't necessarily have to be the case, but it's talked about as if there is no other. We all make our own pacts with the devil. But I think it's worth thinking outside the given context. For example, what would be handier than $5 million "marketing pushes" to make books seem as exciting as videos or nintendo would be a real critical culture in the mass media. However, I'll never get to prove my thesis, since it's not going to happen. Best Alison