Bob:

You are an idealist for certain, and we need more like you, but that does not change reality.

Be assured that "when an artist develops his own 'style' it has little or nothing to do with a conscious decision about if that 'style' will be accepted by the masses" is idealism at its best.

Even the most humble of the great masters wanted to be accepted and respected by their peers and by the marketplace in his own time. Some were and some weren't. They did not emerge from some great vacuum, but rather studied art and saw what people liked and what they didn't like. And every one of them put their works on dispaly hoping they would sell and put bread on the table. Some did and some didn't. The smart ones adapted their style to suit the demands of the marketplace while they were living, while others died pennyless because they either were not as good as the others or their subject matter was not as popular at the time as they thought it would be.

After even the bad artists were dead, however, creative marketers, who had bought those works for next to nothing found clever ways to point out that the artist was the first to do this or the first to do that bull [naughty word removed]. Hey, let the guy rest in peace. He was just trying to turn a buck like everyone else, not rewrite art history.

Creativity for creativity's sake alone may be idealistic, but it is hardly practical in the long run.

P.E. Knudsen





[This message has been edited by Knute (edited 02-07-2004).]

P.E. Knudsen