Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/05/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]So the value of art and skill of the artist is to be judged by who paid for the initial production A patron stocking a warehouse gives greater value to the object. No doubt the model has worked that way for generations. What makes this discussion clumsy is being part of a transitional generation. We have experience with the old way of judging--finding a someone willing to pay the cost of publication was the first cut in defining excellence. That is changing now--and will change even more in the immediate future. Soon we may stop asking painters who bought their paint for them. Perhaps we will honor them more if the McArthur Foundation buys their paint, but they will not produce better at or be better artists for the distinction. Best art is not always award winning and vice versa. Perhaps the "vanity press" epithet will give way as the publishing world changes with the time. We give more credence to bloggers paid by the New York Times than those who blog on their own. Often, it is deserved, but not necessarily so. It is a feather in their hat , but not the final judgement on the worth of their words. Ric Carter On May 10, 2009, at 4:04 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: > I usually agree with our George. > If I came out with a Blurb book tomorrow which I may just do I'd be > embarrassed to be put in the same category as Ted and Kyle and real > published authors. > This is simple and obvious I'd think to most people. > > > Mark William Rabiner > >