-
Jonah, I'll tell you one more little thing about Art. I grew up in an art colony, so to speak. As a child, I lived down the street from a famous painter, who make a ton of money with his Modern Art. He was an Abstract Impressionist, and he was no amateur. He took his work very seriously. His pieces were in demand ... if he painted, there was a buyer. He used very high quality canvas, stretched over professional level framework and prepared in a way to maximize the life of the art work. Everything he did was professional. He worked in his studio most days, and made millions. Although he painted the style that allowed his creativity to thrive, that creativity was what drew wealthy buyers.
Originally Posted by Jonah
He needed to provide pro level quality and offer his work in a business-like manner. His intention was absolutely to make money. He didn't sell out and paint olives with arms and legs near giant Martini glasses or glowing cottages (Art students will name these two artists if we have any around here), but adapted his talent to the very real need to support his family and to support his enviable position of using his skill and creativity to earn a living.
Without money ( "money is bad for art, it is for sure") coming in from Art lovers, he would not have been able to be as prolific and productive, nor as creative. Because he was a pro, he was able to devote full time to Art. Money from rich patrons funded his life and his work.
-
10-16-2014 03:47 PM
-
SuperFour00,Jonah, I'll tell you one more little thing about Art. I grew up in an art colony, so to speak. As a child, I lived down the street from a famous painter, who make a ton of money with his Modern Art. He was an Abstract Impressionist, and he was no amateur. He took his work very seriously. His pieces were in demand ... if he painted, there was a buyer. He used very high quality canvas, stretched over professional level framework and prepared in a way to maximize the life of the art work. Everything he did was professional. He worked in his studio most days, and made millions. Although he painted the style that allowed his creativity to thrive, that creativity was what drew wealthy buyers.
He needed to provide pro level quality and offer his work in a business-like manner. His intention was absolutely to make money. He didn't sell out and paint olives with arms and legs near giant Martini glasses or glowing cottages (Art students will name these two artists if we have any around here), but adapted his talent to the very real need to support his family and to support his enviable position of using his skill and creativity to earn a living.
Without money ( "money is bad for art, it is for sure") coming in from Art lovers, he would not have been able to be as prolific and productive, nor as creative. Because he was a pro, he was able to devote full time to Art. Money from rich patrons funded his life and his work.
Did I not say the same in the beginning? If he did not have to give up his artistic nature and principles and was capable to earn money lucky he is!Although he painted the style that allowed his creativity to thrive, that creativity was what drew wealthy buyers.
But what about those who were not so lucky, whose artistic creativity also thrive but do not meet enthusiasm from rich donators? Do they have to change a bit so 'to mee the requirements'?
-
What the hell are you talking about????? Of course they created art for money. Listen, you aren't making any sense so I'm bowing out of this argument. I don't think you are thinking or you just like to argue. I don't like to argue. I like to discuss. See you later. Originally Posted by Jonah
-
No problem, come later and we'll see.What the hell are you talking about????? Of course they created art for money. Listen, you aren't making any sense so I'm bowing out of this argument. I don't think you are thinking or you just like to argue. I don't like to argue. I like to discuss. See you later.
-
Yes, Beethoven was the first to have an EGO. That explains the dawn of the Romantic era where the artist became the central figure. But he was still paid to compose, just not "to order." Everyone has been paid. Our current era where the public feels it is their right to have music for free is unique and criminal, if you ask me. This is the first time artists have been asked to create and give away art with no remuneration whatsoever.
-
I agree. I don't understand this sense of entitlement when it comes to free entertainment. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
I know very few musicians want to be performers exclusively. I did and I definitely had tunnel vision about that. I have to wonder about people recording everything with cell phones now. There's a generation now that's lived their entire lives being recorded or recording something. It used to be that some musicians would avoid recording anything as a means to get people into the clubs. I know someone who's been very successful in that regard. Now he has a club in Japan. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
Hard to get a grasp on all this but in some places outside the US there seems to be an big audience for live music.
-
Recorded music used to be for preserving performances. Now outside of classical or jazz that's not the way it's done.
-
"Did I not say the same in the beginning?" Originally Posted by Jonah
I heard you say: "money is bad for art"
"Do they have to change a bit so 'to mee the requirements'?"
Yes, develop more talent and creativity, perhaps. Or get a day job.
Maybe a better way to say what you may accept is: "Greed is bad for Art".
-
Why take it out of context? I put here quite a few posts whereo explain I really tried to explain what I meant.I heard you say: "money is bad for art"
I hoped you read it all.
This is where I disagree. Mozart actually even tried to meet these requirements"Do they have to change a bit so 'to mee the requirements'?"
Yes, develop more talent and creativity, perhaps. Or get a day job.
You welcomed me on Earth in some before, well believe me I am on it, even so hard on it that it burns my feet sometimes.
There is no idealism or romaticisim in what I am saying. I know what the price is.
I am just absolutely sure that any kind of confomism is bad for Art.
Sometimes the requirements of audiens, or donator and real creativity of an author may coincide, often order can provoke a creation of masterpiece. But it is possible only - I belive ONLY - when author's creative will just finds proper conditions for its realization, but NEVER on the contrary. Never those conditions should predetermine author's creativity.
The examples up there with Mozart, Bach, artists of the past illustrate this, besides in the arts like arcitecture or cinema the author's creative solutions may be often corrected by practical reasons - technical or economical.
But this is different point, in practical sence only writers alsomt do not depend on money in creative process - all they need is a bunch of paper and a pencil - of course even this might be a problem - but still much less than tons of marble, of huge movie teams and technical quipment, or even an engagemant of a band and stage...
But this is not what I am talking about.
I understand that it may look paradoxal, but life is paradoxal - even in those cases when Mozart eagerly composed one symphony after another and inserted corrections in the score to conciously please his possible employer, even then he does no do it for money... because his inner creative force was so intensive that in any conditions he did it in his own way - (by the way Mozart never got the job he wanted, I belive it was his carachter a bit, he tried but he could not change... but it dose not matter. There were those who recieved the job on the same basis and still they did not give up themeselve for money reasons.)
I try to explain again that I judge only by a piec of art, not by what artist did or said: I go to the gallery and see dozens of Madonnas - and some of them are obvious quickly completed ordered of better or worse quality, and some are really inspired masterpieces. Though both were paid and ordered - and often even to the same artist.
Now I hope it is clearer what I mean when I say: money are bad art, they are good for prosperity of the artists, but bad for art.
When you lare involeved in listening music or wtch great painting you do not realate these impesssions with money, nore calculate it in money - it goes to one soul from another soul, this is how it works.
Art both in its effect and origin has nothing to do with money - it be seems to be the simplest explanations.Last edited by Jonah; 10-17-2014 at 02:53 AM.
-
I think we all understand the concept of the true artist or poet who needs to express truth/art without any motivation for compensation. Yes, I think we also understand that a starving artist might compromise their art for the survival of themselves or loved ones. The reality of the world is often the marketplace does influence the artist. Perhaps only amateurs can produce pure art...
-
I try to explain again and again that I judge only by a piec of art, not by what artist did or said: I go to the gallery and see dozens of Madonnas - and some of them are obvious quickly completed ordered of better or worse quality, and some are really inspired masterpieces. Though both were paid and ordered - and often even to the same artist.
Both are paid, both are in the market, both have orders and even stric practical conditions from payer, both are successful, but one is motivated with money, and another one is not. Do you see the difference?
-
I think I see what Jonah is driving at in that money is inherently something that will interfere with the creative genius buried in so many artists... Such is the nature money.
-
I busked for charity once, for a hospice. In the middle of a market town good neighbours day. Made £30 and change. People thought I was the entertainment. Even though I had a sign naming the hospice - people only donated cash when I stopped playing and they asked what I was doing. People are stupid.
The following year I did a static cycle ride for the same charity. Not only was I frantically pedalling I was generating enough electricity with a dynamo to power an energy efficient light bulb, I had procured 200 energy efficient light bulbs from a nationwide energy supplier and was handing them out after the public made a donation to the charity. I made £345 and change. People were entertained and educated with a practical experiment on energy saving. They queued up for the expensive light bulbs for pennies. People are greedy.
I see busking as entertainment for provider and proles, not for self profit and self promotion!
-
I wish jazz musicians would distinguish between secular and sacred music when they use classical music to make a point.
-
Why? Originally Posted by Stevebol
-
I know I am a bit late to this thread but...yes I have been busking off and on for nearly 30 years.
I've gotten laid because of it and also been fined for "panhandling"....hahahaha! As soon as it's warm enough to do so I will be busking again this year!!!
-
NYC used to have a program where individuals/groups could get audition and then play in public spaces. I remember seeing Roy Hargrove and his band, and Stanley Jordan back in the 80's before they made a name, or had a recording contract, I believe. (The only bad part---I'd want to stay and listen for half an hr. at a time which sometimes made me late for work!) Both Hargrove and Jordan became more well known, deservedly so, I think by doing this.
Last edited by goldenwave77; 02-02-2015 at 11:13 PM. Reason: correct typos
-
My favorite vocalist I ever played with used to stand on stage and he would say " do not clap . throw money!!!!"
-
Jonah, I red somewhere you mentioned you are from St. Petersburg, its my hometown too. Perhaps you are familiar with Pushkin, the pride of Russian poetry and literature. He said it very well: "my inspiration is not for sale, but my manuscripts sure are!" (Не продается вдохновение, но можно рукопись продать!). I think if you adopt this philosophy, you wouldnt have to be so torn choosing between money and art Originally Posted by Jonah
-
For those thinking about it but not sure because some people think ill of buskers, it is good enough for some of New York's hottest talent:
-
You, along with whomever made that stupid meme, haven't a clue about busking. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
I made my living as a busker for more than a decade. Buskers and panhandlers are sworn enemies on the street.
If you feel it's beneath you, don't do it. But don't disparage the many great performers who are taking it to the streets, just because you're too chicken to try it yourself.
-
When I began busking more than 20 years ago I naively thought I'd be much better than the other buskers out there. I found there's all kinds of competition from entertainers of all disciplines. Some jurisdictions have a permit system, and others have an audition, but. for the most part, there aren't any barriers to doing it. Consequently there are many buskers who really aren't very good. But there are some great ones. Originally Posted by gggomez
For those thinking about it but not sure because some people think ill of buskers, it is good enough for some of New York's hottest talent:
Of course it's an oversimplification, but there are generally two kinds of busking. One involves attracting a crowd, doing a routine, and soliciting donations from onlookers after the performance. The other is more ambient and atmospheric, with a stream of people passing by.
I know of a busker in Vancouver (Canada) who makes enough to buy a house in one of the most expensive cities to do so. He played what some of us used to refer to as the ultimate busking weapon - the hammer dulcimer.
-
Yeah. As if Batman Robin would even have that conversation. I didn't even think they were musicians. Originally Posted by JimmyGster
-
Maybe you're not familiar with cosmic's sense of humor, Mr. 1 post. And what's your beef with panhandlers? Work it out. There's plenty of room for everyone. Originally Posted by JimmyGster
Reply With Quote
Trenier Model E, 2011 (Natural Burst) 16"
Yesterday, 07:37 PM in For Sale