> Perhaps the term artist should only
> be used for those who place their art form above money.
Oh come on. Not to be antagonistic, but that's just crap. You think Michaelangelo wasn't in it for the money? You think Led Zepplin weren't? People have awfully weird ideas of what art is supposed to be about these days, and they have a lot less to do with the actual art, and more to do with the personality mold you're supposed to fit in to be called an "Artist".
I mantain, now, as always, that art is an object or creation of some kind. It doesn't matter if it was made for money, or who made it, or why, or what their hair looks like, or even if it was made in order to be "art". It doesn't matter if it was kicked out of MOMA by Giuliani. None of that is important. The important thing is, when you look at it, do you think "Now *that's* art!"?
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]