From david turgeon Sent Tue, Aug 24th 1999, 19:01
From david turgeon Sent Tue, Aug 24th 1999, 19:01
> i'm sorry, i missed the part where we assumed that widening the audience > is an automatic improvement. can anybody provide any examples of art (or > music, say, to keep it relatively ontopic) scenes that became more vital > and creative once the general public started paying attention? i'm sure someone could provide you with a myriad of examples of highly creative musicians who abandoned because of the lack of attention, though. in the litterary field, i know of one dramatic example: the american writer john kennedy toole, who killed himself after being unable to get his (excellent, btw) novel 'a confederacy of dunces' published -- the same book ended up awarding him a posthumous pulitzer. there's also a second point. you presume that attention _necessarily_ hinders creativity, but there's no link between the two, except perhaps indirectly. sure, a highly creative musician may get his face on the wire's front page & might turn into a brat overnight, but have you noticed that the wire isn't grooves or e.x.p. (or motion)? the difference isn't so much with the amount of attention said artist gets, but rather in how it's used. if you make the front page of the wire, then your music is essentially being used to sell cars, cigarettes & alcohol. there will be actual commercial pressure for you to produce music that gains even more attention (rather than contenting yourself with the 'natural' attention you can get by pleasing a large amount of people with your music simply because it's good) so that you can sell more cars, cigarettes & alcohol (& 2.7% visa credit cards through the cdnow website) thus in the end watering down the product using proven methods (the titanic song is a great example of this paint-by-number trick, although celine dion clearly sold her soul to this game early on, i should know, we've been stuck with her in quebec since she's fucking 12.) this is of course done in hopes to reach a larger pool of buyers, regardless of initial creativity or general intent. but fortunately, media coverage isn't evil when done responsibly (this happens less & less often, which makes people utter statements like yours, thinking this is the 'normal state of affairs', whereas it's only happening because we're letting it happen, & because high-publication magazine editors are usually ethic-less, jaded idiots with dollar bills in their ears to cover the noise they're supposed to review.) btw, this isn't a diss, i just don't buy into the 'creativity must be starving' idea. </rant> -- david