|
|
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally)
by Meranda_Jade (Meranda@mymind.com)
on Mar 15, 2002 - 09:23 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I think you missed the point entirely there. Paris, as a joke, whipped up something silly just to see people's reactions, and thought it was funny that they couldn't tell that it wasn't a real exhibit... he did not gloat about anything, read the post, he thought it was sad and funny at the same time...
Why this offended you so badly when you didn't even remotely understand what he was saying is beyond me... I think next time, before you get yourself so worked up, you should think about the post you're reading and what it really means.
|
Re: Shitty Art. (sometimes literally)
by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com)
on Mar 15, 2002 - 10:45 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.plynlymon.com
|
I personally know 36 artists that have thier own galleries and support themselves and thier familys on the procedes. I only know a small part of the the california art community anymore so i know this number is waaay to small to be representative of even just california, let alone the world.
My mom is an artist and supported herself and I on her art for a few years. All her friends were artists (she has since gotten more relaxed about playing with new people) and they all supported themselves and thier families with thier art as well.
The term cluster-fuck is grossly misused here.
The falacy that you are overworking is that all art from all people and all time periods holds an equal message and worth in understanding the artist, the society, and humanity. This is patently untrue. Take for example the portrature of the mid 1800s; this art tells us a very limited amount about the subject, the artist, or the times (the women that were painted wore peroid piece clothing often or with leopards, or some other pretense of immatation of past eras).
anyhoo.....
|
|
|