|
Post by artsy fartsy on Feb 6, 2007 11:32:38 GMT -5
"when was the last time you heard of a ghetto kid rising above all with a paintbrush?"
there are many musicians, rappers, singers, actors, etc who came out of the ghetto. american music was borne out of poverty, hardships, slavery, etc. art comes in a variety of forms.
|
|
|
Post by unoclay on Feb 6, 2007 11:51:42 GMT -5
I dont want to distract from the main point of this thread which is, i think, to quote Joe, "get back to work!", but everyone knows we all enjoy a good debate about art. And we are in the art forum, i think.
Nic, very sorry about no contact this weekend. Caleb and I just werent feeling it, we worked on some stuff in WP. We must get together again, soon, etc. This weekend is waaay overbooked for me (Royce Wedding/Angela Birthday/NoMoeTangents) but who knows, i dont even know which state i'll be in.
Kelleher/Nic, etc, I agree in principle that it is possible to make money from art, I guess im just an 'odds' person. I approach life with a constant assumption that nothing will work out, that everything will fall apart, that nothing i do or work on will be successful. I do this as a self-defense mechanism, because I personally prefer to <always> be plesantly surprised than to be unexpectedly disappointed. I mentally refer to it as the 'lowest common demoninator' theory, although that moniker is misleading. In any case, its the way everything i color all of my thoughts..."I.E. UnoBop..its gonna suck, the police will probably come, my car will break down, and nobody will show up." When only 1 out of 4 items actually occur (police), Im super psyched, for real! I really do visualize the future this way, and then i usually end up in a waaay more ecstatic positon when most of my theories were wrong. Guarentee to happiness my friends. Intentional means to achieving Buddhistic 'contentment with the world as it is'.
Back to Art: therefore, i could never take seriously the idea of Art Success as defined by money. Sure, its possible, but very, very, very improbable. On a scale of lowest common demoninator, it would be about a -280. Like playing for the 76ers or Eagles..sure its possible, but I better just have a backup career in case things dont work out. And i dont know what kind of $$ we're talking here, but i think a baseline might include rent, healthcare, food, and ability to live some modicum of a sustainable life (income=$800-2000 per month after performance-related expenses?). I mean, sure, one can be financially successful if the bar is really low. This is clearly a relative aspect of the discussion.
ChrisCank, one thing to consider is that art schools/teachers/galleries are supported, in LARGE amount, by charitable donations (aka the US government is the biggest donor). While this does not necessarily = "no money in art", it does endanger the purity of a stand for capitalistic success in art, if only because the situation is not governed by supply and demand, but rather by the forces of an external capitalistic economy and benevolent charity. As Art is Murder pointed out, the funding gets cut in the blink of an eye...and the galleries languish.
The masses overlook greatness because the masses(everyone) tend to follow trends. Therefore much greatness will always be overlooked because of our human preference for trends. Unfortunately, a majority of people dont have an extended interest in divergent art, and prefer to stick to the herd, aka what is fed to them by tv and pop radio. Outsider Art 'Greatness' (aka non-commercial success) is not typically defined in terms of financial success--chicken or the egg--and therefore, when i say its unlikely (-280) for anyone to become financially successful as an artist, its because i presume that the folks who I am speaking to fall into the general Outside category (not for radio/masses). Maybe the only way to overcome this barrier will be to take over the means of delivery--radio/tv--which may be already happening. But this takes a lot of work, and in the process, the outsider may become the insider or burned out, catering to the system, indoctrinated into the machine. I dont know.
Maybe radio and tastes will change?
I think we/you are all doing our best to force the machine to change. However, as I watch innumerable friends (many of whom are Very talented, aka top notch) strive to succeed, it seems that the energy required to cause a major sea change (snowball rolling) and become financially successful is nigh impossible (-280). This is because these folks have little interest in becoming insiders, aka galleries, hob-nobbing, name-dropping, radio play, tour all the time, $$ for advertising and promotion, resume-sending...becuase all of this means Art becomes Work, and then something might be lost. . .the fire that started the interest in Art, perhaps?
This discussion is in no way intended to undercut or discourage anyone who looks to Art for succor/sustinance. Indeed, like a troll under the bridge, perhaps i hope to inspire you to prove me wrong. I would very much like to be wrong! Being wrong makes for healthy brain. Id rather be involved in non-financially-successful artworld anyway. Money, though a necessary system that prevents war and intrapersonal violence, corrupts and coorodes.
Hey everyone good news: Brenden Wheelan, Phil, and Matt (Tangent) made a song for the Bear Bones "Dreams" website. Email me and i can send the file!
|
|
|
Post by unoclay on Feb 6, 2007 11:54:57 GMT -5
PS. I love you
|
|
|
Post by frozen nose on Feb 6, 2007 12:11:36 GMT -5
tiers of financial success, not saying its easy to get rich, or live off art alone. thats hard.
"to live some modicum of a sustainable life (income=$800-2000 per month "
a solid handful of gigs in a month would make a significant dent in that, ^^^ i have friends who've been doing it for years....and never had anything like commercial/radio play, etc. the masses are asses, but there are a lot of people out there. and we arent talking about making your entire living, necessarily, i didnt think.
|
|
|
Post by chriscank on Feb 6, 2007 15:00:14 GMT -5
Those charitable donations by our benevolent government are there because there is a demand for it, because people feel better about having art around. Because art can be free will.
All I ask from all you naysayers out there is, "What would this world be like if we didn't have creative minds?"
as far this guy....
"when was the last time you heard of a ghetto kid rising above all with a paintbrush?"
one word....."Banksy"
|
|
|
Post by tk421 on Feb 6, 2007 19:58:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by degijames on Feb 6, 2007 23:53:00 GMT -5
there are many musicians, rappers, singers, actors, etc who came out of the ghetto. American music was borne out of poverty, hardships, slavery, etc. art comes in a variety of forms. I notice you couldn't name an artist, you know an artist that uses a paintbrush, which was my point. Kelly did but who the f*** ever heard of him but some white art student? and what the f*** is american music? american idol is american music and I don't see any ghetto there.
|
|
|
Post by chriscank on Feb 7, 2007 2:31:28 GMT -5
don't be an ignoramus James, who heard of Bansky? Well they didn't feature him on TRL or anything, so I can't really blame you for not knowing who he is I guess.
|
|
|
Post by degijames on Feb 7, 2007 4:45:46 GMT -5
I pose a serious question. who has ever heard of bansky?
I get mocked by a person who is selectively, purposely trained in art for not hearing about bansky; it's not like he's a house hold name like van gogh or rembrant. That's like me mocking you for not knowing who the gate brothers are in the sporting world.
and for f***s sake don't blur the line between art and music. music is at least cool and entertaining at any level, hence hundreds and hundreds of people showing up for chucks versus ten people showing up for a state college art opening.
|
|
|
Post by degijames on Feb 7, 2007 4:57:21 GMT -5
After some research I have found that bansky is a rich white kid from bristol, your common england middle class suburb. So he does not qualify as ghetto. Here he is doing some graff for Damon Alburn from "Blur" A close up/only known photo of his face
|
|
|
Post by joe on Feb 7, 2007 10:43:29 GMT -5
I heard of Bamphsky 100's of times from Vortman. Jess explained it was one of Andy peterast Warhol's junky boyfriends...
Web definitions for pederast a man who has sex (usually sodomy) with a boy as the passive partner wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Definition in context
|
|
|
Post by joe on Feb 7, 2007 10:47:19 GMT -5
Now can you take this Bansky BS back to the Vorcan board? Bill can I get moderator status for this thread? Like I said, we start getting something going with outside interests checking it out and then the repressed sector of degicank brings it down to nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Feb 7, 2007 11:00:23 GMT -5
Nic, Clay...
Think about 2 things: 1. Shrek 2. Pat Panang was the inspiration for youtube
B&B will be worldwide if you want...
|
|
|
Post by pointless on Feb 7, 2007 13:43:56 GMT -5
" notice you couldn't name an artist, you know an artist that uses a paintbrush, which was my point. Kelly did but who the f*** ever heard of him but some white art student?"
why are you making this alleged point again? what is your claim? poor people dont make art with paintbrushes? im confused. but i guess im feeding the trolls so why bother
|
|
|
Post by glue sniffer on Feb 7, 2007 14:08:41 GMT -5
"music is at least cool and entertaining at any level, hence hundreds and hundreds of people showing up for chucks versus ten people showing up for a state college art opening."
ever hear of burning man? there are art festivals that draw people in many areas and im sure none of those people at chucks show up for the drugs ;^]
|
|