[Dixielandjazz] Re: Art & Jazz & Audience

[Stephen Barbone]

Which, of course, I totally agree with. Had the last paragraph of my post below not
been snipped, that would have been evident.

Put another way, Woody Allen has the largest audience of any OKOM clarinet player
today. Especially live and on TV. At VERY high prices to hear him. At least a $50
cover at the Carlyle Hotel in NYC, if not a $75 cover charge.

Thus, Woody's clarinet art rules and the rest of us OKOM clarinetists are pretty much
insignificant, by audience comparison. ;-)

Cheers,
Steve Barbone

Steven Holzer wrote:

> The fact that Vincent Van Gogh's audience was late in developing does
> not change the fact that he ultimately had one. A person who considers
> himslf an "artist" may certainly do so on the strength of his own
> reaction to his own work. The true significance of the "artist",
> however, will only be known when the effect of his work on a wider
> audience can be gauged.
>
> Stephen Barbone wrote:
>
> >>From: Steven Holzer <slholzer at iquest.net> (polite snip)
> >>
> >>Even if the audience consists only of the artist, art still depends on
> >>the audience. A better question is whether art that appeals only to the
> >>audience of one has any significance to the greater world.  I submit
> >>that it does not.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Careful., now.
> >
> >Vincent Van Gogh had virtually no audience while he was alive yet he continued to
> >paint. I believe during his life he sold one painting for a very small amount of
> >money to someone who felt sorry for him, and his work which was roundly vilified
> >back then.
> >
> >Now a century or so later we find his paintings selling for upwards of 100 million
> >dollars each when ever they come to market.
> >
> >Was it art when nobody but him liked it?