It takes a little more than a village to validate or invalidate good
or bad art.
Money, Propaganda, Exposure , Luck, or many like minded others.
mando
On Sep 24, 2009, at 8:58 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
"Yeah, and when Miller complains about those who question
capitalism, he
reveals his true nature, the underlying conviction that a monetary
system in
which capital gravitates to a center, pooling in vast amounts,
money attracts
money, is somehow ideal. (WC)
The above would be logical, if, like Ayn Rand, Miller had
complained about
*ALL* those who question capitalism.
I've only complained about those who propose that art can effectively
invalidate it -- which accomplishes nothing more than offer them a
comfy,
self-righteous niche in the contemporary artworld.
It's my contention that capitalist systems -- just like the feudal
ones that
preceded them -- can be good, bad, or ugly -- depending on how all
of us
(including art teachers) do our jobs.
Regarding Saul's last sentence: "because it (Capitalism) only acts
according
to its nature and this is is reflected in its aesthetic
practices" --
Michael Brady has often offered the proper response to this kind
of rhetoric:
only people can act and have aesthetic practices. Capitalism is
just a
concept.
____________________________________________________________
Just drop it. Click here for free information on weight loss surgery!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/
BLSrjnxRbzsckjWZVKfj1ASKLZFmYd
NHM3itTLpjpnCrTTUXHhPSs9RklEk/
