[LAU] re Subconscious Affecting Music

[david]

David Santamauro wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 16:15:53 +0400
> Louigi Verona <louigi.verona at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:49 PM, David Santamauro
>> <david.santamauro at gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 12:21:27 +0400
>>> Louigi Verona <louigi.verona at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> don't. But commercial art is not art and those products are not
>>>> worth anybody's attention. Even the best of them.
>>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> So any commissioned work by the great masters throughout the
>>> ages is not worth attention? I beg to differ.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>
>> Why do you rephrase me? I did not say anything about commissioned
>> works by great masters.
>>
> fair enough. My point is simply that such a broad stroke as "commercial
> art is not art" is just your opinion (which you are entitled) but
> clearly there are many magnificent works that have been created for the
> masses in search of fame and fortune that are worthy of attention.

But they weren't created for the masses. They commissioned and paid for 
by the wealthy rulers, for themselves. They were done because someone 
paid the artist to do them. Therefore, they are commercial art.

> Most great composers were/are performers that needed to display their
> virtuosity in order to "break into the scene", Bach, Mozart and
> Beethoven being no exceptions.

They did it to make a living. The Brandenburg Concerti were written for 
one purpose: to convince a wealthy ruler to give Bach a job.

> Are we to write off these works and pay them no attention?

I prefer to write off the works that communicate nothing. As my artist 
daughter would say it, "It's just a spot on the wall."

-- 
David
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community