Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6130614" data-attributes="member: 177">Then "True ART" is a sub-genre of expression that has lost meaning and relevance, such that it can be ignored for our purposes.  Real* art imitates life.  And real life is only sometimes depressing, confusing and expensive.  At other times real life is uplifting, enlightening, and cost-effective.  In addition, we are discussion genre works, which are generally excluded from the realm of "True ART" by those who assert they know what it is - genre is a crutch, they'll tell you, and thus no piece of "True ART" will be under discussion here anyway.More to the point, though, "True ART" has empirically proven to not be an economically viable genre during the artist's lifetime.  It doesn't make bestseller's lists, or movie deals.  It is thus self-limiting as art, given that art's purpose is not pretension, but communication - your book isn't art if nobody ever reads it!  So, I would expect authors to bite the bullet of enlightened self-interest, and create works that people actually want to read.Thus, we can largely leave your "True ART" out of the picture.  Can we move on, then, to something a tad less curmudgeonly?*Noting that "real" and "true" are not synonymous in this kind of discussion - "true" is a matter of theoretical definition, "real" is a matter of practical reality.</blockquote>