it can also have a positive effect. I'm Living Proof!

Absolutely--even in a scenario as simple as "Well, they're why I'm still alive to even be able to attempt art."

Absolutely--even in a scenario as simple as "Well, they're why I'm still alive to even be able to attempt art."

Well, that too, though I don't think I was that far gone.

But I'm sure there are artists out there producing who may have been contemplating that choice: "Xanax or a bullet? Hmmmm..."

Empathy is probably an even more complicated subject than Cool. The important thing to remember that true Empathy requires a shared connection between the artist and the observer. It's extremely subjective, and highly dependent on the observer.

Empathy is when an artist attempts to convey an emotion or experience. It is necessary to distinguish Empathy from false empathy, where the artist is not experiencing an emotion himself, but is cynically trying to manipulate the observer's emotions.

This in itself is not a bad thing. Eisenstein's The Battleship Potemkin, is a premier example of this false empathy, and yet it is considered one of the most influential movies of all time. While Potemkin scores low on the Empathy axis, it does well on the Intelligence, Talent and Cool axes. Being able to effectively manipulate people's emotions is an act of great skill.

Precious Moments, on the other hand, scores low on all four axes. There is no Intelligence involved, little or no Talent required, and is a prime example of false empathy.

Since Coolness and Empathy are relative to the observer, a person could look at Precious Moments and consider them to be Empathic and Cool and therefore artistic, but that would require the person to be emotionally naive and culturally starved. For most people, Precious Moments would score low on all four axes, and not meet the threshold to be considered art.

I have no idea why I'm all up in arms about Precious Moments--I think they're awful. I guess I just don't know that Samuel Butler wasn't feeling what he was trying to convey. And I *know* there's art out there that requires less skill than he displays. What he did is well executed. I think it's kitschy and schlocky and icky, but that doesn't mean he didn't mean it. And it doesn't mean I could do it myself.

I guess I just don't know that Samuel Butler wasn't feeling what he was trying to convey.

This. This is what bugs me - the assertion of motives.

Of course, there's a WHOLE school of thought (I know it was trendy when I was in college; not sure if it still is) about the myth of intent. It's not what the author intends that matters but what the audience takes from the work. I think there's some validity to it, but there was a great deal of overkill, IMO. For me, that way lies madness and/or semiotics.

Scola, that was an excellent work of synthesis of the objective and subjective sides of the argument.

I too still think Precious Moments count as art -- though crappy art -- simply because of how many people invest their emotions in those figurines. I don't, and I really can't fathom the people who do, but they draw emotion like a chemical process, and the presence of that much emotion -- even if I don't respect the quality of that emotion -- is meaningful. Possibly that also puts me in the anthropologist crowd. (But also I am right.)

Popular art which, as you well know, references something closer to artisanship. Craft.

No, see, David, I'm disputing your terms of debate because they don't make any sense. Art is art is art. Saying that the addition of an adjective makes art into not-art is like saying that a sunny day is not a day. Also, on the semantic level, allow me to beat you with a DVD boxed set over the very idea that popularity -- in the audience-size sense, and in the intended-for-broad-consumption sense -- is a cause for debasement and devaluation. "It's popular therefore it's no good" is an idea that needs my foot in its ass in all its incarnations, and you're veering desperately close to it.

Also, I would put craft and art into the same conceptual bin, so closely that on odd days I would say they're the same thing.

I think it's fair to say that art is frequently an interactive process in that the audience may see something very different from what the author intended. Not least because each member of the audience brings a different world view to the experience of the work.

Example that probably doesn't get my point across too well -- Some years ago, I was in a community theater production of What the Butler Saw. At each performance, the audience would laugh at different lines. But rarely at the lines that we thought were funniest -- because we knew the play so well that we recognized irony that would escape a first-time viewer.

Maybe a better example is the regular "was such-and-such character gay" or "were such-and-such characters a couple/lovers" disputes. Different members of the audience may disagree, and unless the author intended ambiguity, they can't correctly perceive the author's intent.

And I'll toss out another proposition for the debate: Pure entertainment can be Great Art. Agree or disagree?

Pure entertainment can be Great Art. Agree or disagree?

Agree.

One example: Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro. (Although there's room for argument there, I guess. It's a satire, so it's not strictly, or simply, a slap-your-knee comedy.)

I'd say that economics and politics have lot more to do with suicide rates than chosen careers.

Yeah, but I'd be listed as a secretary, not a writer, after my awesomely melodramatic swan dive. Economics and politics, though, have a greater influence on whether or not you can get help for what's ailing your head.

But feel free to ignore. Either I've made a brilliant point or completely failed. The rate in which I metabolize this caffeine will be the deciding factor!

Miracleman's post reminds me that while I am alive and therefore could create something theoretically, the meds, in large doses, completely wipe out the desire to create. For me, anyway. Subjectively. Writing is something that I NEED to do. Like having to pee. If I don't make it to the keyboard, there will be a huge mess. Overmedication is like turning the switch off and my mind doesn't think it needs to do that anymore.

I don't know if that helps explain?

Miracleman's post reminds me that while I am alive and therefore could create something theoretically, the meds, in large doses, completely wipe out the desire to create. For me, anyway. Subjectively. Writing is something that I NEED to do. Like having to pee. If I don't make it to the keyboard, there will be a huge mess. Overmedication is like turning the switch off and my mind doesn't think it needs to do that anymore.

I don't know if that helps explain?

Oh, no, I get that. Years and years ago, when the Earth's crust was cooling, I knew a woman who was a brilliant lyricist and writer.

Unfortunately, she was also clinically psychotic.

When she started receiving medication for that condition, her will...her need...to write vanished. Which made her incredibly unhappy, even as she was relieved that she was no longer experiencing the psychosis.

My case is my case and, as I said, YMMV. In fact, when I first started taking the anti-depressants, my output dropped considerably. I didn't feel the need to do anything creative, I was happy just being level. But then my ideas started percolating again and I was able to address them with more clarity.