[Harp-L] dylan et al.

[JON KIP <jonkip@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Bob,
> I don't agree with you.  Touching people is about commercialism.  Art is
> about self expression.  On the receiving end, art succeeds when the
> receiver cannot continue his life in the same way after experiencing said
> art.  But that is not the purpose of art.  The artist should not care about
> the result of his work, only that he is an artist, therefore he creates art.
> Michael Rubin
> Michaelrubinharmonica


a very sweeping re-defining of some common words.

Touching people is about commercialism?

in my reality, touching people is just about creating an effect. Good, Bad, or indifferent.

>  But that is not the purpose of art. 

who says it can't be one of the purposes of art?

not I.

"Success" to the artist, means that he/she has done what he/she set out to do... whatever it is

"Commercial Success" pays better, and is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. (Can't eat 'success')

> The artist should not care about
> the result of his work
who says?

still not I

Art for art's sake is kind of like masturbation (so I've heard)
Art as Communication is kind of like The Real Thing (again, so I've heard)

I suppose each has its place.....

which reminds me.........

time to go "do art"

jk, musical artist who finds enjoyment in his music and who enjoys (and who is amazed)  when others seem to enjoy his silly attempts at music.

http://jonkip.com


On Apr 5, 2013, at 6:32 AM, harp-l-request@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Bob,
> I don't agree with you.  Touching people is about commercialism.  Art is
> about self expression.  On the receiving end, art succeeds when the
> receiver cannot continue his life in the same way after experiencing said
> art.  But that is not the purpose of art.  The artist should not care about
> the result of his work, only that he is an artist, therefore he creates art.
> Michael Rubin
> Michaelrubinharmonica