Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
See, the thing is, people won't know what art they'll enjoy unless they have an opportunity to actually experience it.
|
The first Broadway play I saw was Phantom of The Opera in the early 90's, because of the buzz and awards it won, I went to several other shows after that, including some of Webber's other productions - none were as good, but I have seen Phantom two other times. Phantom had broad appeal in its story and music.
Olga Korbut is the reason I watch Olympic and international championship gymnastics. Every two to four years there are similar stars who draw me to the sport. The drama and competition takes a back seat to no other sport. On the other-hand male gymnastics has very little appeal just like the WNBA has very little appeal to me, but the NBA does. Superior world-class performance stands out and generates broad interest.
Tiger Woods is the reason I occasionally watch grand slam golf tournaments, no one else and the sport has done anything to keep my interest - if he doesn't play I don't care what happens. He is the story.
Danica Patrick is the reason I recently watched some NASCAR, where that leads I don't know. She is the story.
My wife is the reason I had dinner at Spagos, Wolf Gang Puck' restaurant in Beverly Hills, and to this day we occasionally splurge on "fine dining". the over-all experience was good enough to get me hooked, in-spite of the costs. And trust me, I was prepared to tell my wife - "see I told you it would be a waste of money".
To me the tone of our comment suggests that I would never go outside my comfort zone regarding "art" because I don't know what I would enjoy or unless there is some kind of subsidy connected with it until I can gain an appreciation of it. That is a false premise. I have an awareness of the "art" that is available, and if it does not "hook" me, it is not because I don't know what I will enjoy, but has everything to do with the "art" focusing on the base level things that appeal to me regardless of form. And, there is absolutely no correlation with government subsidy and my gaining an appreciation of "art". All an artist has to do is ask me. I always enjoy a good story, simplicity, exceptional dramatic performance, underdogs over coming the odds, music with simple melodies -easy to dance to, and anything done by Clint Eastwood.
---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:43 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
Comparing NASCAR to art is ludicrous
|
Right. NASCAR is just cars going around in circles. The circles ballet dancers go around in are very different. A circle is not really a circle, is it? Of course not. But if I spend disposable money going to a NASCAR race, that is disposable money I ain't spending going to the ballet. Disposable income is not disposable income is it? Aaaaagh, this is so confusing....your "art" is "art", anyone who is not into your "art" just isn't into "art", is that it?
---------- Post added at 07:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
the position ace is adopting is disengenuous in that it's not really about a coherent discussion concerning **his** claim that the transformations of the contemporary capitalist labor market are good things because they free more people up to "be artists"---
|
Dude, your definition of "art" is far too limited. That is what is causing you to have problems with what I have posted.
I accept the fact that you don't understand my point and I accept that there is nothing further that I can do to help you understand.