Panarchy, you seem to believe strongly that art should be of value to society. You also imply strongly that art has great power to affect its viewers' modes of thought. I would hazard that you feel these two points can come together if art is used to affect modes of thought in a *positive* way, eg not "to pacify discontent in society."
Would you agree, then, that the art which will be of most use to society will be that which relates truths in a manner which effectively re-presents apsects of society to itself, in order that a new light be thrown its faults and we, the viewers and components of society can understand ourselves better and make changes?
Creating a piece of art which does this is a great achievment, one which many struggle toward their whole lives. Does it not follow that those who produce such "useful" art have a far more valid claim to rewards for their efforts than those whose work does not achieve this "re-presentation"?
Of course I am fully aware that this is not what happens in the art world. I do hope, though, that my above point at least illustrates that the *idea* of the artist as a professional is not inherently unfair, and certainly does not represent a "corruption of dreams".
Surely if a particular artist's work was *socially useful* and did not receive the public attention it merited, your anger should be directed at those who control the distribution of such media, not the artist hirself? |