gulley@stolaf.UUCP (01/30/84)
Oh, come on now, that's taking it more than a bit too far;
'
(1) I saw nothing in the quoted remark that directly implied that
ALL financial gain resulting from artistic endeavors is evil.
There's a difference between financial gain received as a by-
product of expressing yourself, and financial gain received
as a result of making it the end in itself. The difference
is not in the money, but in the artist, and what he/she "pan-
dered" to in creating the piece. As for Eno and Rampal, you're
speaking after the fact- they have already acheived sizable
financial gains, to a lesser or greater extent, without sac-
rificing the essence of what they've worked for all along, or
being pushed around by "the taint of *gasp* financial success".
Since you've got to pander to someone in creating and selling
art, and since the whole idea is to impress someone into liking
it enough to buy it, you might as well pander to yourself, since
that's the only person you REALLY know how to impress. (And you
generally have the best chance of succeeding if you really know
what you're doing.)
(2) Religious painting is a artistic form, like rock, that many
artists can work under without plagiarizing. Michelangelo
obviously liked the form, and made his own valid contribution
to it. He didn't parrot anyone, any more than I parrot some-
one else in the act of speaking English. (But if I say the same
sentences over and over, however. .)
(3) Saying what you feel, and and at least attempting to give valid
reasons for it, is not considered "stupid" anywhere except in
Communist Russia. It's not disclaiming the integrity of the
other person to speak your mind (as long as it's done in a
civil manner), it's simply doing likewise. If you don't like
what the person is saying, don't read or respond to it.
William Gulley
. . !ihnp4!stolaf!gulley
(3)