Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
That was beautiful, Ted. Thank you! -Daniel Berkman On Jan 13, 2011, at 8:49 AM, tEd ® KiLLiAn wrote: > Ahhhh . . . > > In some ways, I am sure, this article is merely meant as an instance of >"tough love" from the author to a group of people he cares about and >identifies with. > > He makes a number of valid points that seem to make practical sense. > > However, there is a lot that he grossly misses about the nature of "Art" >as it has become in the last century or so (music included). > > If you turn back the clock 150 years or so, and switch the focus from >music to painting, one can easily see that his attitude and assertions >are nearly identical to those of the established art system of the >"Salon" in Paris during the time of the Impressionists and >Post-Impressionists: Monet, Degas, Van Gogh, Gauguin, and many other >outsiders, et al. > > Which is to say: "Learn to be a real professional artist like so-and-so >(like those being cranked out daily by the dues-paying system of schools >and established galleries and patrons) or go home, give up, get a real >job, get a life, get a clue." > > Can any of us who love art imagine what it would be like if there had >never been a Vincent Van Gogh? > > Sure the world would've gone on turning - but it would be a lot poorer >for it. > > Does anybody really remember the contributions of any of the work or >contributions of any of the very talented folk who chose the conservative >"establishment art" route in that period? > > Not many, I'd wager, remember or know of William Adolphe Beaugereau - >perhaps the greatest academically-trained and widely successful painter >from that era. > > He was rich and famous during his own time, but now is largely forgotten >- or remembered only as a sort of historical footnote - sort of like the >Pat Boone of the early rock 'n' roll era, or the manufactured and >hyper-marketed boy-bands or blonde bimbette singer-sluts of today will be. > > So... > > A lot of us are **NOT** in it for the money or the fame (or the sex and >drugs). > > I don't imagine many of us are in it "for the ages" (Art History) either >- for that matter (LOL). > > Some of us are even ill-equipped and ill-disposed to be performers, per >se . . . I know I certainly am. > > But some of us are nevertheless "bitten by the bug" (or the muse) and >have a vision (or something) that drives us to create what we do. > > For better or worse, some of us simply can't help it. > > For whatever reason, the fickle universe has determined that (perhaps) >the greater creative gifts are often given to those who did not seek them >and would not venture to pursue them if they rightly had any choice in >the matter. > > Fame and fortune may come to those who work very hard to be professional >at their "craft" like plumbers or butchers or chemists. > > But fame, fortune and and "success" have very little sometimes to do >with Art. > > They are irrelevant. > > My encouragement to any of you who want to create Art is to keep on >doing it, no matter what, no matter who says "No." no matter who says "Go >home, give up, get a job, cut your hair, stand up straight, fly right." >etc., etc. > > Or, no matter who (on the other hand) says "Get serious, pay your dues, >do it the way others have, compromise, join the union, do what sells, >learn to moon-walk, play to the masses." > > Keep doing what you passion drives you to do - what has meaning for you >and you alone. > > An audience may or may not come, but you will have done your duty to >your gift . . . to you muse . . . to the universe. > > Best, > > Ted > > > On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Louie Angulo wrote: > >> An interesting article >> >> >http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/2011/01/dont-quit-your-second-day-job/?utm_source=DIYNews&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=011211 >> >> any comments? >> Luis >