"Easy for you to say. But as far as the "art" that'll end up in museums 100 years from now, 1000 years from now, well, I beg to differ."
Not sure I know what you are begging to differ with, since I did not say anything like that. My comment is about artists, yours about art. Two different subjects, if you ask me.
I don't know anything about Pugs or his "stuff" so can't comment on that. I'll take your word for it.
"Is "everyone" a potential NBA basketball player? Um, no."
I agree, but that does not mean we should take down all the basketball courts, do a recall on all the basketballs, and not allow kids shooting hoops, high school varsity team players, college kids with basketball scholarships and the like to think of themselves as basketball players. NBA? No, but basketball players? Certainly.
"Frankly I'm sick and tired of people who think that if they "try" to be good at something, that means that they are. And that we should applaud 'em for their effort.
Wrong."
I sympathize with you about these "people" you refer to, and the things they are trying to convince you of. However, what I said was that everyone is an artist. I did not say everyone's art was good or valuable or destined to be recognized at some future date when tastes twist around to embrace them.
As you know, better than most I should think, the history of art has many many examples of artists whose works became valued after their death, and few whose work was properly appreciated while they lived. Which suggests to me that overall those least equipped to correctly judge art are those in the first audience for which it is created (the same principle applies to movie critics, IMHO).
Everyone is an artist. If it were not so, how could we have any appreciation for art?
PCM |
