Previous Next Index Thread
Previous Next Index Thread
Tony Kondaks wrote: > > Elie Charest <turgon@mlink.net> wrote: > > : > But the free market is exactly what produced the beautiful art > : > of the Avant-Garde of the 20's and 30's...so what's the problem? > > : Er... not really. The Free Market didn't have much to do with it. In fact the Free > : Market has little to do with art: great art comes from great artists. Case in point the > > Why do you differentiate the creation of art with the exchange of > products or services for money? To me there isn't any difference. Yes there is. True art is not made for money, but for art's sake. >My > father was a professional musician his whole life and he earned a very > good living at it. His job I would describe as 100% artistic but he > still used it to bring home the bacon. It's okay to live from your art. I think every artist should be able to live from his or her art, even if they don't necessarily produce original, provocative, revolutionary art. >He was part of the free > market...why weren't the Avant-Garde's also part of the free market? A Free Market has little to do with being paid for what you do. Economics do exist outside of the sacrosanct "Free Market", you know. > : theories of montage elaborated by Eisenstein - which greatly influenced Cinema as a > : whole - and which were based on Marxist theory. Following your logic, one could say they > : were "produced" by a Planned Economy. > >The fruits of Eisenstein's genius were > a result of his own self-generated efforts, not a planned economy (seems > to me I had to sit through Battleship Potemkin and something to do with > the Steps of Odessa when I had a film class in college...lots and lots of > montage, like you say). Exactly. I said, "following your logic". I think true artists go beyond something as mundane as the Economic philosophy of their society. "Free Market" Capitalism or Socialism, it doesn't make that much difference. > : In any case, those media watchdogs you refer to can usually only reach an infinitesimal > : fraction of Big Media's audience. Our clueless elites can not tolerate anything that > : questions their authority, and the control they exert on Big Media forbids any serious > : critic of editorial policies and the system in general. Note that this can be quite > : different on the net, where you don't need huge amounts of cash to print a newspaper, > : and are therefore less subject to pressure from advertisers and capitalist owners. This > : is where the internet might change the News equation. > > And don't you think that any news media source that discovers a good > story or scoop on the net will take advantage of that and reproduce it > through their media outlet? If you answer "yes" to that question, you > must realize that what fuels the motor of the media is the good story, > the scoop -- no matter whom or which sacred cow it blasts -- and THIS is > the self-interest that drives them...not some conspiracy between the > media's corporate owner and its advertisers. But of course it rarely blasts the sacred cow of the day: the power of so-called "experts" and high-level, unelected administrators, as well as death-dealing multinationals (see Amnesty International's report on the Arms Trade Industry in the First World.) The obsession with the scoop is always to present undigested facts as quickly as you can -- faster than the other guy if possible. Rarely is it to look at an issue in a different light than your competitor does...