To: jlallen who wrote (81591 ) 6/13/2000 10:33:00 AM From: Neocon Read Replies (1) | Respond to
There is some truth to that, and some falsehood. Art is ultimately social, it is validated by being brought to market, and it must find an audience. The audience often shares not only a liking for it, but holds substantially the same view of what is good about it. Additionally, it has not been primarily viewed as a mode of self- expression until comparatively recently. For most of its history, art was a way of adorning temples and palaces, patrician abodes and public spaces. The artist did not choose the subject, the patron did, and there were conventions to follow in the treatment of it. Innovations could be made, but they had to gain broad acceptance, or the career was over. Nor was the art usually for private delectation, but was meant to impress one's peers or the public, enhance one's prestige, or ennoble the subject,which was generally religious, literary, or historical. The proliferation of scenes of everyday life, primarily for private delectation, such as occurred in the Netherlands, was a radical innovation at the time, and, as I have mentioned, the Impressionists were despised by some for painting public amusements instead of heroic subjects.
