What Cheerskep does (as playwright) is similar to what a commission sculptor
or muralist does -- i.e. they are filling a public space so they are required
to "maintain substantial attention to how your artistic product is likely to
be received."
But there are - and have been throughout history - plenty of both literary
and graphic artists who have only been concerned with pleasing themselves or a
very small circle of cognoscenti.
The great difference, nowadays, is that the literary arts have little that
resembles that great sociological phenomenon known as the "artworld" of the
graphic arts.
BTW -- being our resident fan of socialist art (as well the art of every other
oppressive regime throughout world history - including Nazi Germany and the
slave-trading state of Benin) -- I would question whether any poor results
were more the result of their requirements than of the failure of the artists
involved to adapt to them.
I'm glad you've arrived here, Geoff -- and curious person that I am -- hope
that you'll eventually tell us more about your preferences in all these arts.
(this is an aesthetics list, after all!)
******************
>That being said, I do feel more kinship with your perspective in maintaining
substantial attention to how your artistic product is likely to be received. I
wonder if some members of the public might feel that the lack of concern with
public reception is a flaw in contemporary fine art. Still, I recognize the
deleterious impact of the requirement by the Russian communist regime of
socialist art.
Who knows the truth?
____________________________________________________________
Click here to compare rates and find the best deal on renting a car.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmhQ3qBHMRMxXZ6RbRYdIfMh
GX4OSdZmUZaa36jENw1TXnes/
