Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
It's unfair & inaccurate of you to make the Fleetwood Mac situation a zero sum game: either you're emotionally moving millions of people or you're nothing but a technician. Sometimes you're doing both & sometimes you're doing neither. The greatest of artists join feats of technique with that emotional strength that you find in Jean Renoir ("The Rules of the Game," "A Day in the Country"). In such artists, form & content truly become insoluble.
|
What about Woody Allen?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
Furthermore, some of the greatest "emotional" artists never became widely known, let alone loved, until decades after their death -- if at all.
|
The greatest emotional artists... you mean for you right?
Finally, as regards my "Sound of Mucus" ... er "Music" mention, it's always been true that much of what appeals to people's emotions can be superficial, tearjerky, mawkish, trite, banal, sentimental, etc. Moving thousands or even millions of people can't in & of itself be considered an aesthetic virtue. The work still has to stand by itself & be judged in at least somewhat formalistic terms.[/QUOTE]
That's what critics said of Douglas Sirk's movies.
Besides after TV invention (as Sirk remarked too in one of his best movies
) aesthetic virtue of a work of art is a quite volatile and ductile subject.
Romy