I don't deny anybody's right to have an opinion on any non-crucial matter such as art or music. But I certainly don't welcome the opinion of anybody on important matters which might bear on my (or my dear ones') life or death who is unintelligent or who can't be bothered to study the subject. As to whether an artist should be allowed to make a living, then this depends on those who appreciate his/her work and whether they're prepared to fork out sufficiently.
By the way, I haven't got any opinions about contemporary music or art in general. I have opinions about particular composers or artists. In fact, I have a collection of paintings and etchings by a contemporary artist, Peter Brown, which I add to twice a year from his showings in Bath and London. But I'll go so far as to suggest that the majority of what we usually call 'contemporary' artists who use unmade beds or elephant dung or pickled corpses of sheep for their art are either confidence tricksters (as Picasso came close to confessing late in life about his abstract works) or self-delusional (as are those who collect their art, as are the art critics in the press who write approvingly of them). In 2100 the value of this sort of art will be worth precisely $0 and it will be considered to be an example of contemporary madness.
Keith Hudson
At 07:13 28/05/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Keith you said:
I believe that all humans should have equal rights in some basic respects, but I don't believe that, for example, an unintelligent person should have an equal vote as me on complex matters such as nuclear power, were there to be a one-issue election,
REH comment:
Keith, this seems so totally at odds with your opinions about art. Should we ask for one's resume when deciding whether an artist will live or die based upon the quality of their art? Especially given the miserable record of accomplishment over the years by the intellectual crowd in picking masterpieces and seminal art? Here in the US homo-economicus even insists upon an enforced ignorance on the part of Presidents by insisting that they only serve long enough to learn the job and then leave "for the greater good." People who know nothing about the value or meaning of my work make decisions about how well I will live or if I will make a living at all in my work all the time. Perhaps it is in your work where you see how miserable composers have been treated by the ignorant that you are beginning to make that cross reference and realize the flaw that could make you as miserable as Duparc or Beethoven in his later years while he was writing the Ninth Symphony. Often the greatest minds are at the end of a line and so their children won't even benefit from their parents having triumphed over societal abuse by those who were ignorant. Well, it is just an interesting principle that you espoused. I'm surprised to hear you say it given your opinions about contemporary music and art.
REH
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
