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.

Writers who committed suicide is a big list.

If we can expand the sample beyond "people famous enough to have pages on Wikipedia", this UK analysis has the highest suicide rates for male vets and female gov inspectors. ... In the US, white female artists are mentioned again, along with white male physicians and black guards. ... Overall, I'd say that economics and politics have lot more to do with suicide rates than chosen careers.

But it's not the same thing, is it? Lots of people commit suicide. I thought David was simply saying the number of writers who do is pretty high. But don't you have to compare the number of artists total to the number of vets or government inspectors or physicians or guards, to draw a conclusion about the percentage of each who commits suicide?

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.

I get this. And I think it's a problem not just for creative people, but a lot of people. I know my sister-in-law went off one med, because she hated the feeling of *not* feeling anything, good or bad. She was too flat on the meds.

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 they're related, but craft is more about facility and technical skill rather than intent and expression. For example, as an illustrator and painter I consider myself a fairly skilled craftsman and I can usually draw upon those skills to create work of some quality when needed. But I only occasionally feel inspired to act in the capacity of an artist, create something for the sake of creating.

Art.

Art art art. The word has lost all meaning.

Except that it's what you call a guy with no arms or legs who's hanging on a wall.

a guy with no arms or legs who's hanging on a wall.

Now, that dude has earned the right to a good bout of mental illness.

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.

Witness: the Left Behind books. Because of a fundamental difference in world view the authors and people who like those books see great art. Those who do not share their world view see outlandishly massive flaws in the work, and gain insight into the mind of the authors that the authors themselves cannot see.

I think they're related, but craft is more about facility and technical skill rather than intent and expression.

Particularly in the theater and film industries, but also in art in general, I would argue that they are equal parts facility/technical skill and intent/expression. It was an interesting try at an argument, but I've seen enough facility and technical skill on display in most art to find this argument to not hold water.