You speak of it as if I’m imposing my opinion on others. I’m not. I’m just saying what I think. If you pay $50,000 for a picture of a red square, I will laugh at you. A lot. If you think you got a good value, that shouldn’t bother you.
Or possibly C) his conception of a bowl of fruit is a robin’s egg blue square, and to paint anything else would compromise the use of his talents. It’s quite possible that that’s exactly how he sees it, and is not intending on pulling a fast one on anybody.
But if you want to question his sanity, go ahead. After all, I’m questioning yours. 
I’ve known a lot of artists. Trust me when I say that ripping off the public is not their primary motivation.
That would pretty much lead me back to my conclusion A).
Fair enough. There’s a lot of that going around.
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth here. First you say that such an idea could potentially kill a musician’s career, then you suggest that he went ahead and did it because it would get him more money. If it’s such a patently career-killing idea, why would it make him more money?
Or maybe…just maybe…he didn’t care about the fucking money? Maybe John Cage felt that he had something of value to share with the music community, and was willing to put his career on the line to share it?
Guh, you’re thick. Culture changes. It’s not a static thing. All the little realists are happily painting along at their canvases, when one day, one of the notices that parts of the audience look bored. In fact, they look downright hostile. Well, says the little artist. Perhaps I can cash in on this cultural change. I had some ideas before that would’ve gotten me ostracized - but now is the time!
Do you actually know any artists?
Because you really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about … .
You’re a comic book guy, right?
Have you read Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics?
CandidGamera, your posts are random nonsense that could have been churned out by a chimp on acid. You have no discernable talent beyond tapping keys in that moronic way you have. You can never be said to be posting, because I know what posting is, and it requires actual talent and intelligence and, by god, it requires work. Simply posting the crap you have isn’t cutting it.
No, I’m not responding to one of your posts. I have read enough of them, but I have not read most of them, even in this thread. I have, however, read enough of them to form an opinion, and I’ll be damned if you’re going to convince me that my opinon is changeable. Only stuck-up pretentious jerks would even dream of doing that.
Your posts are crap. There’s no way around that. You cannot convince me that I might like them better if I learned something, because nothing I’ll ever learn will change a value judgement I’ve already made. My artistic opinions are nigh unto the Rock of Ages, and shall be untouched and untrammeled by your petty laziness and your high-handed pretentions.
You cannot win. You cannot even make me acknowledge that I might, on some planet, in some reality, on some weird and wonderful drug might possibly exhibit the slightest deviation towards the slightest degree of being mistaken in the least amount. I shall always and forever think your posts, your work, and your very life essence is the utter crap upon which the hardiest maggots fail to thrive.
Now, thank me for my insights or I shall become cross and call you a poopy-head.
I think Candid has us figured out. It’s time to reveal the truth. Candid, the problem is you’re an ignorant hick from the coal mines and that’s why you’re incapable of understanding art. Art is the property of us intellectuals and you’re not one of us. You’re just not good enough.
Is that what you were waiting for?
Sheldon Kopp defines the neurotic (paraphrasing here) as a bullfighter, swishing his cape, brandishing his sword, fighting for his life. Only – there’s no bull in the ring. It’s all in the bullfighter’s head.
By refusing to acknowledge that you can become educated about art and learn to appreciate it, you make it an elitist venture and you exclude yourself.
Your choice.
::gives Derleth a standing O::
That was beautiful.
:: bows ::
I cannot give a screaming O in this medium, so a standing O will have to do.
(Be sure to clean up afterwards, Lute.)
What’s really, really funny to me is that Derleth’s post is a beautiful parody of both myself, and my opposition here. Nicely done. 
No, it was a work of art and you clearly didn’t understand it.
Awww. You mean my 26 years of experience with English and Humor aren’t enough qualifications? Damn.
You keep saying that anyone can do it. But you keep failing to produce anything. Until you can, I’m gonaa have to say you’re full of shit. Or maybe you mean anyone except you can do it.
Awww… you want me to paint a red square for you and sign it? Well, I’m very busy right now with practical, useful matters, so it’ll have to wait a while - but to make up for it, I’ll let you pick which two-dimensional shape it is, and which color. Cerulean hexagon, amber trapezoid, magenta rhombus - go nuts.
One thing I keep coming back to is that artists create abstract art to make tons of money. In this I have to say that CandidGamera has figured out the true MO of artists. John Cage, of course, built his large fortune on the success of his popular music. His works for prepared piano were all the rage among the kids of his day. You couldn’t turn on a radio without hearing his latest pop hits.
And as we all know, abstract artists are known for their extravegant lifestyles, their gold-plated cars, and their diamond-encrusted paint brushes. I hear tell that the IRS is launching an investigation into the seedy and lucrative world of sculpture. I hope they bring those bastards down.
Why does that matter? Abstract art is so simple that a monkey can do it, so an intelligent homo sapiens such as yourself surely must be able to produce a viable piece of art quickly enough that it won’t interfere with his busy schedule.
Or are you acknowledging that abstract art does, in fact, take some time and effort on the part of the artist?
It’d take the time to go buy brushes, paints, and a canvas. It’d take the money for all those things. It’d take a suitable space in which to paint - as I don’t want to ruin carpet. I don’t have the space in my apartment. I hope to buy a house soon, though. I expect that imitating the geometric style of Kandinsky would take more time than, say, the random splotches of a Pollock. But if we’re going for a Red Square, say, I could probably knock it off in five minutes, assuming the other conditions were met.
No, didn’t say they make tons of money. I said I think they’re financially motivated. My understanding from the few artists I’ve known is that they generally struggle from meal to meal. If they think they can tap into a counterculture element and make $10,000 doing it, why wouldn’t they?