From: IN%"[email protected]" "Art Criticism Discussion Forum" 11-APR-1994
16:43:49.81
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: Artists and scientists
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01HB20L423PW8ZDUX7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 16:43 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 5183 for HRL@PSUARCH; Mon,
11 Apr 1994 16:43 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6052; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 16:45:07 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 13:19:17 EST
From: JOHN MATTURRI <jjm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Artists and scientists
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01HB20L423PW8ZDUX7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: ARTCRIT@xxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm not certain whether art or science is more valued in
American society (I have my doubts whether most people think
much of either).
I don't think, however, that scientists (especially pure
scientists) are more valued than artists. Compare, for
example, the media images of the scientist (probably mad
but at the very least cold and inhuman) with that of the
artist (also, perhaps, mad but at least human and leading
an interesting bohemian life). None of these images are
accurate, of course, but on the whole I think that people
would be more attracted to the artist stereotype.
Also, it seems that artists are more apt to achieve the
type of fame and fortune that is valued in society than
scientists. Scientists get rich for going into business
(even just in the sense of selling off a patent) but artists
get rich (rarely, but it does happen) for making and selling
their art. There are very few celebrity scientists around
(Hawkings, but his disability makes him a special case) but
plenty of celebrity artists. Certainly, I'm not saying that
celebrity is itself a reflection of art -- and certainly
most artists (including most very good artists) are fare from
celebs, but for good or for ill this is a token of value in
our society and it does seem more likely that, as persons,
(some few) artists are more likely to be valued.
What these types of consideration may mean is that the value
a society places on various persons engaged in types of
activity has little relation to those activities themselves
or what might be really valuable about them.
You do the work that interests you, hopefully maybe make a
living at it, and let public interest be what it may. It's
probably nice when it's positive (although that's no
guarantee about the quality of your work) but that's not
really something you can count on.
16:43:49.81
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: Artists and scientists
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01HB20L423PW8ZDUX7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 16:43 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 5183 for HRL@PSUARCH; Mon,
11 Apr 1994 16:43 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6052; Mon, 11 Apr 1994 16:45:07 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 13:19:17 EST
From: JOHN MATTURRI <jjm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Artists and scientists
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01HB20L423PW8ZDUX7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: ARTCRIT@xxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm not certain whether art or science is more valued in
American society (I have my doubts whether most people think
much of either).
I don't think, however, that scientists (especially pure
scientists) are more valued than artists. Compare, for
example, the media images of the scientist (probably mad
but at the very least cold and inhuman) with that of the
artist (also, perhaps, mad but at least human and leading
an interesting bohemian life). None of these images are
accurate, of course, but on the whole I think that people
would be more attracted to the artist stereotype.
Also, it seems that artists are more apt to achieve the
type of fame and fortune that is valued in society than
scientists. Scientists get rich for going into business
(even just in the sense of selling off a patent) but artists
get rich (rarely, but it does happen) for making and selling
their art. There are very few celebrity scientists around
(Hawkings, but his disability makes him a special case) but
plenty of celebrity artists. Certainly, I'm not saying that
celebrity is itself a reflection of art -- and certainly
most artists (including most very good artists) are fare from
celebs, but for good or for ill this is a token of value in
our society and it does seem more likely that, as persons,
(some few) artists are more likely to be valued.
What these types of consideration may mean is that the value
a society places on various persons engaged in types of
activity has little relation to those activities themselves
or what might be really valuable about them.
You do the work that interests you, hopefully maybe make a
living at it, and let public interest be what it may. It's
probably nice when it's positive (although that's no
guarantee about the quality of your work) but that's not
really something you can count on.