Post #69137 by cybertiki on Mon, Jan 12, 2004 9:40 PM

I didn't think you belittled anyone, and in fact, I'd tend to agree that much of the Shag phenomenon probably consists of an "artificially created collecting marketplace"; hence my inclusion of the Warhol quote. As you say however, valuation of a work of art is, in the end, a very subjective matter. I don't think the fact that the collectors market is artificial negates the talent involved in creating the works of art - or the business acumen in creating a market.

Sadly, however, I think there are two schools of thought as regard art in general. There is a purist view that believes in "art for art's sake". This group generally accepts the starving-artist stereotype, as long as the works produced have a redeeming artistic or social value. This school tends to reject works that are too commercial, denying them as true "works of art". This is the reason that John Williams work in Star Wars will probably never be recognized as "high art" - in spite of the magnificence and intricacy of the music.

The second group accepts that there is nothing ignoble about making a profit derived from a talent that is part natural, and part learned. If it is true that the "Shag thing" is an artifically created collectors market, I'd say Josh Agle deserves some credit! I've played as a musician in a Symphony Orchestra and I'll tip my hat to ANY artist who can make a living (let alone realize the monetary success of a Shag) with their inborn talents, and practiced skills. It isn't easy as many of the artists out there on Tiki Central can attest!

Well, I got 5 and a half umbrellas here, and lucid thoughts are coming on much more slowly - to say nothing for my typing - so I must've got thru my fifth Mai-Tai somewhere along here ... damned if I know where the half umbrella came from but it's still got a piece of pineapple and a cherry on it, so maybe I can get just one more drink in before bedtime!