> >I am not sure that giving creative minds a free ride so that they >may create is such a great thing -- it removes them from having to >interact with the world in any meaningful way and (in my opinion) >may rob them of the very stimulus which provides great art. >
That's a wonderful idea. Let's have doctors, lawyers, teachers, plumbers, carpenters do their work without pay too. The quality and volume of their work are bound to improve as a result. But let's assume that we've stumbled into some realm where common sense doesn't apply and that people in the arts really do function better under adverse economic circumstances. If that were true, then the work of those few situated in comfortable circumstances (such as Palestrina, w. his rich wife) would be perceptibly inferior to that created by the distressed majority. But it isn't. Furthermore, you would expect the quality of the work of an individual artist to vary inversely with that individual's leisure to create, but that too (as the cases of Sch�tz and Partch vividly illustrate) is demonstrably not the case. Artists, and especially great ones, are compelled to create by inner demons regardless of their economic circumstances. Using that as an excuse to avoid paying for the value they add to society as a whole is neither just nor an efficient use of human resources. Frankly, your argument reminds me of nothing so much as the advice mothers used to give their daughters: "Why should he buy the cow when he can get the milk for free?" To which the answer is:"because it's right." -- Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
