LATEST CHATTY HEADER
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account
Already have an account? Login Now
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 111 replies.
Michelangelo initially turned down painting the Sistine chapel because he didn't consider himself a painter.
Initially the Pope commissioned the painting of the 12 apostles, but convinced Michelangelo by allowing him to paint his own choice.
Obviously old Mikey had more on his mind that just money when it came to this particular work. The ability to have creative control obviously outweighed the view of himself as just a sculptor.
Now, my argument would be that the Sistine Chapel is a work of art because the artist was given the ability to chose manner in which the work was carried out. Not until the pope allowed Michelangelo the freedom to paint did he take the job.
My argument is that art is only art when it's created with out influence from anything aside from the artist itself. People can and have been paid to create art but if at any point outside influences effect the final work, it loses it's merit.
Nobody has been present for every deal ever made, so WE only have the ability to decide what we call art, but none of us will ever truly know.
IMO, the fact that the money was such a heavy downside to the person invovled in the OP story only convinces me more that he wasn't working in the name of art, which was why I took issue with it.
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.