tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7837009210484327971.post5378438402758743485..comments2016-11-21T00:03:26.846-08:00Comments on For the Birds: An Aesthetics Blog: Pure or Manufactured ArtJerome Langguthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11232771961596244247noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7837009210484327971.post-77001667252347050112013-12-10T15:59:53.882-08:002013-12-10T15:59:53.882-08:00[This does not mean that you shouldn't champio...[This does not mean that you shouldn't champion or support the artists you like, be they small-time, local, or internationally renowned. The only way art stays alive is if it has an audience to keep it so.]Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05192035737977543342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7837009210484327971.post-45850534422370482042013-12-10T15:56:17.697-08:002013-12-10T15:56:17.697-08:00If a work of art was to only include the cost of m...If a work of art was to only include the cost of materials (even with a little more money thrown in for labor costs), how could an artist support themselves? I think that, like any occupation, financial gain is used as a reward for good work. How else would one insure that good art continues to get made? An artist may be forced to seek other means of providing for themselves (not to mention their families) if they do not make enough money through creating their art. This would effect their artistic output for sure. Yes, we can argue about who is worthy or not worthy, but that really depends on if the artist can capture a sizable audience. If people are willing to pay for it, let them pay for it. It is your job as a free-thinking individual to decide if you believe the work bought by another person (or their respective artistic taste) is good. Just don't judge them for spending their money how they wish. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05192035737977543342noreply@blogger.com