Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Richardson <zenchops59-AT-yahoo.com>
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] "Art for Art's sake"




malgosia askanas <ma-AT-panix.com> wrote:    You also said that "art for art's sake" means "unalloyed art". But 
unalloyed with what? With experience? With judgement? With desire? 
If that's what you mean, then perhaps you are thinking of the kind of 
art that John Cage was intent on making. I am a great admirer of 
Cage, but if that's what you mean, then the concept doesn't quite fit 
with the context in which Michael used the term in the post I first 
responded to - and I have assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you and 
Michael use the term in the same way (since you've expressed mutual 
agreement). So if we really want to discuss the idea of "art for 
art's sake" (and I am, of course, very much game for discussing it), 
I think the concept needs to be much more precisely thought through.


-m
         While I can't speak for Ed, I think we still are on the same page.. if I interpret his word unalloyed to mean unshaped, unmanipulated, unconditioned by concerns for meeting the agendas of those parties whose approval  ( read: willingness to purchase ) takes into account other concerns than artistic excellence as significant factors in their decision.   As we return to the start of this ( most wonderful and fascinating!) discussion, the starting point was how can Lisa get more gigs.... I think "gigs" implies  getting paid in this case.Certainly one could even construe the pursuit of artistic excellence as a marketing ploy, since our beloved world of grant writing runs off it. But for simplicity's sake, I won't go there.
         The elephant in the livingroom in this semiotic exercise is that I'd imagine few of us work entirely at one end of the spectrum or the other, if the spectrum runs from  being driven by market analysis to being in total disregard of what anybody else thinks about the content our work.Maybe in that statement I am revealing my own definition of Art for Art's sake... i.e.,  a person following their own inspiration, willing to chance that it may not be liked or understood, ( or bought ) but compelled  ( and maybe courageous ) enough to just do it anyway.A leap off the edge.
   
        Admittedly, this is an entirely western, relatively recent (historically speaking)
  notion about art and artists. When I was traveling through southeast Asia, meeting with puppeteers there, clearly they were artists too..... but there was an entirely different concept that they held as to the role an artist plays in their society.But that's another discussion !
   
        
   
  michael

       
---------------------------------
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!
_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit
Archives: http://www.driftline.org