At 2/1/13 01:29 AM, Sockembop wrote:
But this is all just wrong. You can't look at a painting and determine how much the artist charged for it, if anything at all.
Right, that's just what I said, you can't express the true value of art in dollars; yet that is what the artist did when he sold the piece isn't it? Again, I'll keep repeating myself, I don't hold this against the artist; I see his reasons for doing so. What I think is regrettable is that we live in a world where these reasons play a role. What I think is offensive is that some poeple want to make these reasons into absolute reasons.
You either like it or you don't. The reason for the painting doesn't matter. Doing art for free doesn't make your art better, doesn't make you a better artist, and doesn't make you more deserving of respect.
Even if I were to agree with all this - which I don't - it is of no relevance to my point, which Kumakun, thanks for that, tried to clarify, but which you just seem to keep missing.
There is nothing wrong with doing art for free. Doing art for free is great.
So we agree on that, my entire point was that there is nothing wrong with doing art for free; I was making that point against the guy who said that there was something wrong with doing art for free - that was the entire scope of my argument. I understand that you may not agree with some of the points I made, but perhaps if you saw them in the light of the point I was trying to make instead of some isolated sentences you'd understand where I'm coming from.
What is not so great is when people have the expectation that just because someone likes to do art that they are willing to devote their time to someone else's project with no compensation just because.
No one is fucking contesting this.
Saying that you have more respect for someone who does art because they enjoy it than someone who made a career out of it is just some hardcore art snobbery bs. If you really cared about art you would just it based on the art itself not the motivation behind it.
I already admitted to being an idealist. I have tried to stay away from the whole "what is art?" discussion because I know I can't formulate a definition that satisfies it's complexity. However; claiming that thought, motivation, idea or (intended) meaning have no significance whatsoever to art is, in my opinion, bullshit. You are saying that what probably amounts to the majority of the poeple who think about art - among all the various definitions of what it is, there might indeed be one which does deny these aspects of art - does not really care about art.
Yet you have the guts to call me a "hardcore art snob".