3 ms·
I feel like there's an implication that convincing people to make bad/mediocre art was a somehow a letdown, but that seems like a fine outcome to me if it got p
by mrWiz 3y ago
I feel like there's an implication that convincing people to make bad/mediocre art was a somehow a letdown, but that seems like a fine outcome to me if it got people to actually make art. Making bad art is inherent in the process of making good art. As written in the BRC Weekly last year:
> We need lowbudget art to inspire budgetless fledgling artists. We need art of all kinds as an indication that this is a place of radical self-expression and participation where people realize that anyone can be an artist.
- the-dude 3y agoHow romantic. The practice at the time was though : in order to get the benefit, one had to produce a piece once in a while, so there were deadlines. So lots of people smashed some paint on a canvas at that point in time and called it a painting. Others might call this a scam or embezzlement. In particular when one is paying for it.
- mrWiz 3y agoSure, but the alternative discussed here is handing over the money to people that haven't produced art, mediocre or otherwise. This could hardly be considered more a scam or embezzlement scheme than that system.