[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: should musicians have a second job?
That was beautiful, Ted. Thank you!
-Daniel Berkman
On Jan 13, 2011, at 8:49 AM, tEd ® KiLLiAn wrote:
> Ahhhh . . .
>
> In some ways, I am sure, this article is merely meant as an instance of
>"tough love" from the author to a group of people he cares about and
>identifies with.
>
> He makes a number of valid points that seem to make practical sense.
>
> However, there is a lot that he grossly misses about the nature of "Art"
>as it has become in the last century or so (music included).
>
> If you turn back the clock 150 years or so, and switch the focus from
>music to painting, one can easily see that his attitude and assertions
>are nearly identical to those of the established art system of the
>"Salon" in Paris during the time of the Impressionists and
>Post-Impressionists: Monet, Degas, Van Gogh, Gauguin, and many other
>outsiders, et al.
>
> Which is to say: "Learn to be a real professional artist like so-and-so
>(like those being cranked out daily by the dues-paying system of schools
>and established galleries and patrons) or go home, give up, get a real
>job, get a life, get a clue."
>
> Can any of us who love art imagine what it would be like if there had
>never been a Vincent Van Gogh?
>
> Sure the world would've gone on turning - but it would be a lot poorer
>for it.
>
> Does anybody really remember the contributions of any of the work or
>contributions of any of the very talented folk who chose the conservative
>"establishment art" route in that period?
>
> Not many, I'd wager, remember or know of William Adolphe Beaugereau -
>perhaps the greatest academically-trained and widely successful painter
>from that era.
>
> He was rich and famous during his own time, but now is largely forgotten
>- or remembered only as a sort of historical footnote - sort of like the
>Pat Boone of the early rock 'n' roll era, or the manufactured and
>hyper-marketed boy-bands or blonde bimbette singer-sluts of today will be.
>
> So...
>
> A lot of us are **NOT** in it for the money or the fame (or the sex and
>drugs).
>
> I don't imagine many of us are in it "for the ages" (Art History) either
>- for that matter (LOL).
>
> Some of us are even ill-equipped and ill-disposed to be performers, per
>se . . . I know I certainly am.
>
> But some of us are nevertheless "bitten by the bug" (or the muse) and
>have a vision (or something) that drives us to create what we do.
>
> For better or worse, some of us simply can't help it.
>
> For whatever reason, the fickle universe has determined that (perhaps)
>the greater creative gifts are often given to those who did not seek them
>and would not venture to pursue them if they rightly had any choice in
>the matter.
>
> Fame and fortune may come to those who work very hard to be professional
>at their "craft" like plumbers or butchers or chemists.
>
> But fame, fortune and and "success" have very little sometimes to do
>with Art.
>
> They are irrelevant.
>
> My encouragement to any of you who want to create Art is to keep on
>doing it, no matter what, no matter who says "No." no matter who says "Go
>home, give up, get a job, cut your hair, stand up straight, fly right."
>etc., etc.
>
> Or, no matter who (on the other hand) says "Get serious, pay your dues,
>do it the way others have, compromise, join the union, do what sells,
>learn to moon-walk, play to the masses."
>
> Keep doing what you passion drives you to do - what has meaning for you
>and you alone.
>
> An audience may or may not come, but you will have done your duty to
>your gift . . . to you muse . . . to the universe.
>
> Best,
>
> Ted
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Louie Angulo wrote:
>
>> An interesting article
>>
>>
>http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/2011/01/dont-quit-your-second-day-job/?utm_source=DIYNews&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=011211
>>
>> any comments?
>> Luis
>