I’ve heard over and over again what a lousy live performer Dylan is. But the one time I saw him, about ten years ago, I thought he was great. One thing I’ve gathered from other fans’ accounts is that whatever it is that makes Dylan Dylan, it gets lost in big arenas. You have to see him up close.
I’m glad you’re here to tell them what to do with their money, but they did make a statement, and it wasn’t anywhere near as vague as some of you are making it out to be. In fact, they seem to have been quite successful, since you guys are still all riled up by their destroying money that you’d rather have.
Yep. I heard it from several coworkers who went to recent Dylan shows and were really pissed at how awful it was and how little he seemed to care.
Ryan Adams comes to mind.
Is he still pissed off at the English/creative writing teachers who failed to recognize his Talent?
Here’s some enjoyable contempt for the fan base, courtesy of Spinal Tap:
We hit the stage, with rock and rage
And do our best to earn the maximum wage.
The lights are bullshit, the sound’s for the birds,
Don’t know the music and we don’t know the words but still we’re
Stinkin’ up the great outdoors
Stinkin’ up the great outdoors
Stinkin’ up the great outdoors
And the kids don’t mind!
Could an artist who despised their audience even be considered an artist? I don’t think so.
Perfect example. Can that derivative, over-produced piece of pop fluff even be considered art?
I doubt Crissy Hynde hates her larger audience, which includes other musicians and everyone who purchases her work. It wouldn’t surprise me, though, if she hates the dipshits that stand near the stage and scream “Brass in Pocket” at every single performance.
As for Johnny Rotten, he absolutely should feel contempt for his audience. It really was a swindle.
[John Cleese]
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.
[/JC]
An essential element of art is honesty. What of value, by any measure, could you create if you despised those who appreciated it? Not art.
And if the despised people still appreciate it as art? What then?
Sure you can, but that’s another argument.
You can create art, but find your “fans” reactions inappropriate. It may be only a minority, but if it’s vocal enough, you won’t want to create are for that group.
I doubt anyone considered an artist created anything worth being referred to as art with that attitude. It could happen after the fact, but that would cripple an artists ability to create. Whatever came next, in that case, is probably trash.
Why? Most artists create for themselves, not an audience. They appreciate an audience, but the first person they want to please is themselves.
An artist who changes his art to the whims of an audience is hardly an artist.
Thought his name was familiar. I suppose if I were a one-hit-wonder like him I’d get sick of people reminding me what a loser I am, too.
Oh? That’s BRYAN Adams? (checking Wikipedia) And he had several hits, some of which didn’t suck for 80s Power Pop? Oh, you mean RYAN Adams, the whinger who can only wish he had Bryan Adams’ career.
I sent you a PM on this instead of spoiler-boxing it, just because I don’t want someone yelling at me over it even then. 
What’s the statement, though? Honest question. It’s not so much that I’d rather have it as that it’s mystifyingly wasteful. It’s like dropping a million dollars worth of food into the ocean as a performance art piece, trying to make a statement about our species’ obsession with “nourishment.” I’d rather watch GG Allin eat a turd. Sure it’s gross, but at least he’s not wasteful!
Since when? Or, more to the point, says who?
If pissing people off is the measure of art, then I could write a racial slur on the side of my house in giant letters and call it art. But it wouldn’t be – at least it wouldn’t be good art. I agree that art should make a statement or make people feel something – but making people feel angry with you is the easiest possible thing to make them feel, and the statement “People place too much value on money” is neither original, insightful, nor interesting. As an effort at “art”, burning a million dollars basically fails by any conceivable measure.
As for the point about it being “their money”, what does that have to do with anything? Is anyone here arguing that they don’t have a legal right to destroy their money? (Actually, they might not – Isn’t there some law against intentionally defacing or destroying currency? – but my point is that’s not what anyone was talking about.) Whether it’s something they should do is a wholly separate question. I’d say that destroying a million dollars is shamefully, despicably wasteful. If they didn’t want that money, they could have used it to do some good in the world, and probably made a more intelligent artistic statement in the process.
You’re damn straight I’m going to tell them what not to do with their money in this case. You better believe it. And I’m not “still” riled up, I just found out about it.
It’s indulgent crap, plain and simple.
Are all social sensibilities dismissed in the name of art? Can I smack kittens into walls because the blood patterns are compelling to me?
Yea, it’s art. Bad, stupid, indulgent art.
They are idiots. Oh, and, surprise surprise: They regret it now! How about that!
People have been asking questions like that for ages, including as recently as a few days ago on this board. Do you think your rhetorical example settles it? You can’t tell me it’s not provocative, I think it’s interesting, and it didn’t hurt anybody.
Of course I don’t think it settles it. It was a question, after all, rhetorical or not. And I never suggested it wasn’t provocative.
I don’t think it’s as noteworthy that it didn’t hurt anyone as compared to the idea that the money could have* helped* many people.
As someone pointed out earlier, it’s really no different than dropping a million dollars worth of food in the ocean. It was an astronomically wasteful and deplorable act.