Party Question

The post that was quoted here has been removed

how i have missed you!

I have a friend who collects SS memorabilia, you know, badges, swords, post cards, letters etc etc he is not a Nazi in any shape or form, either ideologically or historically, but is just fascinated by that whole epoch of history. Thus if he had a spare £95,000 to buy one of the Fuhrers pieces i am quite sure he would! nor do i think his conscience would twinge in the slightest, for he is a collector of these things not a protagonist of the ideology which has come to associated with them.

As to this other point, its really incredibly interesting, how free are artists actually? are they products of their time and environment as the Marxists may suggest?

Originally posted by StTito
As an artist given the option between these two scenarios what would you pick?
1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.
OR
2- Be an ...[text shortened]... ted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.
Discuss...

It's redundant to put "Discuss" after you've asked a question.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Definitely the second. The act of creating itself is much more rewarding than fame or wealth.

Just don't "reward" yourself by collecting welfare because you don't make enough money to support you and your family (or gay lover if you are an artist)

Originally posted by PBE6
The question seems a little biased toward #2. Which of the following would you pick?

1- Achieve the pinnacle of artistic achievement at a young age with a piece of work that becomes wildly popular both critically and commercially, cementing your place in history as a great artist while securing financial freedom for life.

2- Strive all your life to create great art, but fail each and every time, eventually dying penniless and unrecognized.

hehe, now it seems the question is skewed towards answer number 1!

How do we create a balanced question where both answers appear to hold equal appeal?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Lol, yes, we are a nation given to the celebration of the truly aesthetically pleasing things in life, wine, women and song! in that order, where Susan Boyle fits in, who can tell, perhaps she deserves a category all of her own!

The post that was quoted here has been removed

A man and wife moved in next door, turns out to be a fellow Californian, from Santa Cruz, moved back east to be near grandchildren. He is an artist, his medium being steel sculptures. His latest work was two pieces, a huge iron dragon, very large and impressive and detailed, and a smaller gargoyle, who was to be the dragon's buddy and protector. The gargoyle had a couple of weapons displayed, an iron tipped mace and spear. So a local gallery said he could display the dragon, it is a great piece of art but they censored the gargoyle. No gargoyle, it looks too scary. He said, but they are buddies, they go together as a set, but the so-called director says no go, don't want to scare the public. What kind of crap is that? An artistic director dictating what art is displayed, applying her own censorship? Around here, there is not much in the way of galleries for major works so he is stuck with separating his work because of directorial censorship. Great, eh.

Originally posted by sonhouse
A man and wife moved in next door, turns out to be a fellow Californian, from Santa Cruz, moved back east to be near grandchildren. He is an artist, his medium being steel sculptures. His latest work was two pieces, a huge iron dragon, very large and impressive and detailed, and a smaller gargoyle, who was to be the dragon's buddy and protector. The gargoyl or works so he is stuck with separating his work because of directorial censorship. Great, eh.

there is a great deal of prejudice against Fantasy art, (dragons, gargoyles etc etc.), in fact some do not consider it artistic at all. Why? well they say that it is laboured, the subject matter lacks intellectual content, its simply illustration etc etc etc. My friend who is a professional illustrator, recently did some stuff for the Lord of the Rings, you know dragons and stuff, the royalties practically quadrupled his earnings, yet he took his portfolio to a well known gallery in Glasgow and was politely turned away. Whether the whole genre may be considered artistic or not, i do not as yet know, but I would veer towards the, probably not, for there is a difference between skill and art!

Originally posted by StTito
As an artist given the option between these two scenarios what would you pick?
1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.
OR
2- Be an ...[text shortened]... ted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.
Discuss...

1. I'm not an artist though.

Originally posted by StTito
As an artist given the option between these two scenarios what would you pick?
1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.
OR
2- Be an ...[text shortened]... ted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.
Discuss...

Who wouldn't want the reverential acclaim for a single book attached to books like Gone With the Wind, To Kill a Mockingbird, Dr Zhivago, The Catcher in the Rye, Wuthering Heights or The Bell Jar, even if nothing else one wrote (or didn't write) ever came close to it in artistic or popular terms? For me, even taking away the monetary argument (as not all of the authors of those books grew fat off the proceeds), to write a single book that becomes part of the canon would be an honour beyond my wildest dreams.

As you say, it's a party question, and I suppose you're supposed to find something out about the person from their answer.

Oh.

Originally posted by StTito
As an artist given the option between these two scenarios what would you pick?
1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.
OR
2- Be an ...[text shortened]... ted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.
Discuss...

What kind of art are you talking about? If you're talking ceramics, I choose #1.

Originally posted by StTito
As an artist given the option between these two scenarios what would you pick?
1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.
OR
2- Be an ...[text shortened]... ted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.
Discuss...

There is more to life than art or money.