linuxaudio.org

--00504501690a9c311a048f6a7e87

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I will comment on this Romantic idea how I relate to it.
> Some other parts of what I see in the Romantic idea:

quoted text
>

> * The artist has no control over their art or themselves, and has no

> obligation to control their art or themselves.

>

Depending on what it means. An artist should have the responsibility of what

he is doing. This is one of the reasons why he puts his name on the work.
* The artist does art for his or her own needs, not those of others.

quoted text
>

This is a tough statement. If an artist does work for the glory of God, then

he is doing it for his own needs and needs of others at the same time. Taken

literally, I do not agree that an artist does art for his own needs - this

is very inaccurate to me.
> * The artist is supposed to shock and offend others, and if others react

quoted text
> with shock and offense, the others are wrong and the artist is right.

>

This is ridiculous.
> * Others owe the artist support simply because he's an artist. If others

quoted text
> don't support the artist the way the artist wants to be supported, the

> others are wrong/evil/the enemy/inferior.

>

Even more ridiculous, although today copyright law assumes just that.
> * The artist is exempt from the laws that apply to others simply because

quoted text
> they're artists.

>

Same as above. Basically you are repeating the same idea, these are just

conclusions - that an artist stands above the public. I oppose that idea

greatly.
>

quoted text
> Some artists - particularly the French Romantic poets such as Rimbaud -

> would be quite reasonably considered as severely traumatized and insane

> today. Also, chronic alcoholics and drug abusers.

>

>

Art at the expense of ones mental health is not something I would support.

If a person cannot do art and keep himself in balance, perhaps he is not up

for art.

> I think way too many artists are simply wrapped up in their own egos. The

quoted text
> modern popular music industry is partly to blame for that, as is the modern

> media industry (that meaningless frothing of spray blown about by the wind

> over the waves!) that has turned players of games into exorbitantly overpaid

> "stars". Much of it seems to be the behavior of a spoiled child demanding

> attention: "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT WHAT I DID! AREN'T I GREAT?"

>

>

This happens thanks to the music industry who make it all about personality.

I argue that in times of Bach personality of a composer meant many levels

less.
This is why I was sad for someone to label my views "art for art's sake". My

views have nothing in common with this Romantic idea, if you are sure we did

not make this up here.
--

Louigi Verona

http://www.louigiverona.ru/
--00504501690a9c311a048f6a7e87

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I will comment on this Romantic idea how I relate to it.
Some other parts of what I see in the Romantic idea:
* The artist has no control over their art or themselves, and has no obliga=

tion to control their art or themselves.Depen=

ding on what it means. An artist should have the responsibility of what he =

is doing. This is one of the reasons why he puts his name on the work.
* The artist does art for his or her own needs, not those of others.This is a tough statement. If an artist does work for th=

e glory of God, then he is doing it for his own needs and needs of others a=

t the same time. Taken literally, I do not agree that an artist does art fo=

r his own needs - this is very inaccurate to me.

=A0

* The artist is supposed to shock and offend others, and if others react wi=

th shock and offense, the others are wrong and the artist is right.This is ridiculous.=A0
* Others owe the artist support simply because he's an artist. If other=

s don't support the artist the way the artist wants to be supported, th=

e others are wrong/evil/the enemy/inferior.Even m=

ore ridiculous, although today copyright law assumes just that.

=A0

* The artist is exempt from the laws that apply to others simply because th=

ey're artists.Same as above. Basically you ar=

e repeating the same idea, these are just conclusions - that an artist stan=

ds above the public. I oppose that idea greatly.

=A0
Some artists - particularly the French Romantic poets such as Rimbaud - wou=

ld be quite reasonably considered as severely traumatized and insane today.=

 Also, chronic alcoholics and drug abusers.

Art at the expense of ones mental health is not s=

omething I would support. If a person cannot do art and keep himself in bal=

ance, perhaps he is not up for art.=A0
I think way too many artists are simply wrapped up in their own egos. The m=

odern popular music industry is partly to blame for that, as is the modern =

media industry (that meaningless frothing of spray blown about by the wind =

over the waves!) that has turned players of games into exorbitantly overpai=

d "stars". Much of it seems to be the behavior of a spoiled child=

 demanding attention: "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT WHAT I DID! AREN'T I GR=

EAT?"
=A0This happens thanks to the music industry =

who make it all about personality. I argue that in times of Bach personalit=

y of a composer meant many levels less.This is why I was sad fo=

r someone to label my views "art for art's sake". My views ha=

ve nothing in common with this Romantic idea, if you are sure we did not ma=

ke this up here.

-- Louigi Veronahttp://www.louigiverona.ru/
--00504501690a9c311a048f6a7e87--