I believe that the subjective context of a revolving criteria of perfectionism when paired with a performance relevant to ones commonality can be quite suggestive of an inherent lack of true originality based on the ritualistic degrading of our societies constant demand for the mundane.

UNCLE!!!

Gableson:

You're beginning to sound angry. I hope it's not so.

You may have misunderstood what I was saying with regard to Criss Angel. I was saying that he had financial success, but not artistic success. At the end of my post I said that Larry David didn't have success financially (or even with the audience) in comedy clubs. My point was that he needed to find his audience, which he did, and became enormously successful, both artistically and financially.

You've listed a few cases where the "experts" were wrong, and of course I agree with you in those cases. But there are many more cases where the experts are right. Assessing and understanding skills IS useful, in a variety of ways. You've apparently learned to do it and it probably helps with your work. Your use of phrases such as "according to you" seems a little nasty.

I didn't say, "the audience subjectively responds to objectively discernable skills", so I would appreciate it if you didn't misquote me. What I did say was that some artists are able to incorporate their skills and technique in a way that the audience is affected by it SUBLIMINALLY. The audience knows (without understanding why, perhaps) that the artist has substance beyond the visceral appeal they feel for him. That's just my opinion. You might disagree, but please don't ignore what I'm saying or twist my words to make your own points.



How is what I've said suggesting that? What I've said is that the artists who take the easy way are NOT the people that I most respect, although they may become more financially successful or popular. Those with some depth of understanding of their craft (possibly passed to them through experts who HAVE ana-lyzed objectively the various elements of the skills involved), and who persevere and become successful are, to me, the truly successful artists, even if their financial success doesn't equal the pop stars. I've always had much greater respect for Cindi Lauper than I have for Madonna.

Again, I'm just telling you the way that I see it. You don't have to agree, but there's no point in being nasty because I don't agree with you on everything you say, Gableson. I don't mind that you don't agree with all that I say. It would be nice to continue to discuss ideas with respect and not let rancour intrude. If that's not possible for you, then I guess the discussion is over, at least for me.

- entity

I'm sorry if my tone sounded nasty or angry, Entity. I assure you, I am not. My use of the phrase "according to you" was indeed, simply attributing certain statements to you- at least, my interpretation of what you had just stated, which was of course, purely subjective(!). I remain respectful of your ideas and contributions. I also was (and remain) one of the people who thought Cyndi Lauper to be the greater talent. Although, I must admit, the "staying power" of Madonna has certainly showed her perserverance... and her constant "re-invention", if nothing else, has shown resourcefulness, resiliancy, and a certain kind of wisdom. And I did understand you were not referring to Angel as a successful "artist", (Lord knows, I couldn't agree with you more), but again, the populace would likely disagree with us, and ultimately, what makes us a "better" judge than them? I actually believe we are in agreement on most points. Where we differ, is that I believe "experts" can help you hone your craft, but can't help you "become" an artist. They can help you become a pop star, but as you and I both agree, that doesn't mean it's art. Art comes from within. The internal externalized. Talent can be nurtured, but you've either got it, or you don't. Cyndi Lauper can sing. Madonna can't. Madonna has learned to sing BETTER thanks to some "expert" help, but her art can only reach a certain level. "Experts" can work with a young magician to be adept with coins, but they're not going to turn him into David Roth. Likewise, they may see a young man stumble his way through a coins across, and think (or say), "Well, you'll never be a David Roth". Just as they did with a young Phil Rizzuto. My point? Don't listen to the "experts' assessment"! Listen to, and follow, your heart.

Cyndi Lauper sucks.

Posts such as that do. So much more so.

Gableson: Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I think that the wise artist will take the feedback that experts provide, consider it, perhaps learn from it, and then follow their heart.

I've had instances in my own life where, had I listened sooner to someone who was giving me very good advice from a purely objective point of view, it would have saved me years of heading in a counter-productive direction professionally. On the other hand, I did listen to someone else for a while because I respected their opinion, and it took more years to recover from the damage done by believing what they told me.

As the saying goes, we get too soon old, and too late smart.

Cyndi Lauper, if you really examine what she does, is a true Artist.

- entity

Dr. Suess was rejected 42 times before Cat in the Hat was published. We must add the element of PLAY into all artistic endeavor. Homo Ludens need the mentalists' and magicians' bread and butter. And, for the record, Duchamp himself was a judge at that infamous old-timey exhibition and he rejected his own work so it ended in a third place between sleep and waking.

That's very interesting Coupcoup, Funny, I must have dreamt that you had already offered the, intrinsic to the discussion at hand, Duchamp detail.

If I recognise it as art then it is art, for that moment, and for me. This includes damp patches, spilt coffee, and brushed or unruly hair.

Corona: Are all the things that you recognize as art, equal in artistic value?

- entity

Ok then. It really happened. Honest. Is it more valid now?

I don't believe you for a minute, Stephen, but let's say that you did scribble on a page, it did fly out of your window, was carried to a distant town and a bohemian did find it, frame it, and enjoyed it as art.

There was intent in your scribbling. In the view of some artists, like Pollock, they deny the accident in art. Why you did the scribbling, or how, was inspired by something in your subconscious. That came out in the way you scribbled. You never intended to make art, or share the art, but it was made and shared despite you (although I think you're fibbing about that).

In this case I'd say that it's the bohemian who has made the art, by placing a found object he thought pretty, in a frame and placing it on his wall. It's HIS intent that makes it art, not yours. It could have equally been a ketchup spill on a paper plate he found, or a rusted tin can with patterns of rust he found attractive. He shares it with his lover, who also responds to it, therefore he, not you, has created art. In this case he's not the audience, but is the artist (or perhaps co-artist).

- entity

This is at the the root of where I take issue concerning "objective expert assessers". I don't believe there is such a thing as "equal artistic value". I prefer Cyndi Lauper, more prefer Madonna. Some "experts" on this thread (at least on Phenomenon) prefer Mike Super's performance, others prefer Guy Bavli's. None of these opinions make one artist superior in "artistic value", IMHO.

I prefer Bavli, but I think that Super will win. As an "expert" I can also see why he might win. While I think Bavli the superior performer in many ways, Super is reaching out to a broader, less discerning demographic. More people = More votes. Just as more people read Jackie Collins than read Gore Vidal.

My comment regarding equal artistic value was meant to question whether it's realistic to call bed head art alongside of Starry Night. I question whether the term "Art" is thrown around too loosely.

- entity

Obviously not, as I can afford a damp patch in the bathroom that looks like John Lennon, but I can't afford a Magritte.

As for some notion of artistic value, I don't know.

I do think that for many artists often it is the process of creation that is valuable to them, sometimes the finished product is secondary to that.

[/quote]
I do think that for many artists often it is the process of creation that is valuable to them, sometimes the finished product is secondary to that.
[/quote]

The un awakened. sleepers if you will, on the path of the way showers. To those the satisfaction of creation IS all they desire. To others variation and individualization of what is already there is enough because they have not asked the question. To mimic in your own way is recessive.

The question being why does one, not feel the need, to uniquely create and be satisfied in the creative process....

It was a joke. I read this thread and realized mentalism had come down to Cyndi Lauper and Madonna, which I found funny.

But the odd truth in all of it is I recently read a post on billboardmusic.com where Cyndi Lauper said she does actually know what Criss Angel has in that envelope.

I wonder if what she thinks is in the envelope are his "True Colors".

John

We finally agree- basically. I prefer Bavli, and also believe, as you do, that Super will win. However, I think it's because Super is connecting better with the audience, which in this case, makes him the superior performer, despite him being the inferior mentalist. I would just like to know how you can think Bavli to be the better performer, when by your own admission, Super is reaching out to a larger, broader audience. It's certainly not because he's the better "mentalist". Dane Cook has a broader audience than Larry David, but not because he's a better comic.

Gableson: I think that, given more time and an atmosphere more conducive to demonstrating MENTALISM, that the larger audience would come to see Bavli as the better performer. Super is turning Mentalism into eye candy for the masses, and the larger, more indiscriminate portion of any audience will respond first to what's easy.

Corono and Stardog: I think that creation is, for the PERFORMING Artist, just the first step in a long process. It can be enormously satisfying, but as I keep saying, it's in the sharing of the results with others that the full potential of the art can be realized. I'm also a firm believer that a performance is an always-evolving thing. It improves and changes and grows artistically in front of each new audience.

- entity