Of course, it depends what you mean by value. For economic-value, I can't really argue. But economic value enables artists to eat, by selling or getting funding for their work. Not eating's nasty.
For artistic-value, for connection-response power, I have to disagree. It's not just whether someone thinks their art is worth sharing, it's whether people are moved. Is a better to move many lightly or a few deeply? I think a few deeply. But where's the common value then? Economic-value, as you point out, is such a crass measure. It causes New Scientist, when discussing music, to use Stock as an example of the best.
But I, for one, am not going to be so deeply moved by Bert copying what Fred did last week. Repeat something startling and fresh again and again reduces the power, ultimately to meaninglessness. Listen to much politician-speak. Hear their cliches. Hear those phrases being tired and meaningless. They're using words that once had such power; so powerful they gained common usage. Now they've died of repetition. Substitute form for phrase, and you'll see why I believe we have to search for new expression, should discover, filter and encourage other people's new ways. Of course 99% is crap, but the 1%...
Wordsworth Beethoven? Do you recall their philistines shouted them avant guarde idiots?
You wish the art to gentrify? You forget your ancient brethren detested these supposedly safe heroes?
I thank our past's enlightened ears, who heard their avant guarde and selected.
We have the duty to suffer work that fails, to seek the diamond in the charcoal.
You who don't try, who stand on the outside and piss in, who contribute nothing, you just abuse the taste your predecessors hated.
We who create, we must push, push, must risk.
Our glist may die before us, with us, but may survive a fifty years of staid for some future child, born beyond the death of all the living now, to glint our work awake.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, it depends what you mean by value. For economic-value, I can't really argue. But economic value enables artists to eat, by selling or getting funding for their work. Not eating's nasty.
For artistic-value, for connection-response power, I have to disagree. It's not just whether someone thinks their art is worth sharing, it's whether people are moved. Is a better to move many lightly or a few deeply? I think a few deeply. But where's the common value then? Economic-value, as you point out, is such a crass measure. It causes New Scientist, when discussing music, to use Stock as an example of the best.
But I, for one, am not going to be so deeply moved by Bert copying what Fred did last week. Repeat something startling and fresh again and again reduces the power, ultimately to meaninglessness. Listen to much politician-speak. Hear their cliches. Hear those phrases being tired and meaningless. They're using words that once had such power; so powerful they gained common usage. Now they've died of repetition. Substitute form for phrase, and you'll see why I believe we have to search for new expression, should discover, filter and encourage other people's new ways. Of course 99% is crap, but the 1%...
Wordsworth Beethoven? Do you recall
their philistines shouted them
avant guarde idiots?
You wish the art to gentrify?
You forget your ancient brethren
detested these supposedly safe heroes?
I thank our past's enlightened ears,
who heard their avant guarde
and selected.
We have the duty to suffer work that fails,
to seek the diamond in the charcoal.
You who don't try,
who stand on the outside and piss in,
who contribute nothing,
you just abuse the taste
your predecessors hated.
We who create,
we must push, push,
must risk.
Our glist may die before us,
with us,
but may survive a fifty years of staid
for some future child,
born beyond the death of all the living now,
to glint our work awake.