>I agree that popularity, in and of itself, is not
sufficient evidence of
>bad art (I've never been comfortable about an
arttist's breakthrough
>book, album, whatever, being praised when it comes out
only to be
>dismissed as a sell-out when it becomes popular), but
are you actually
>saying that popularity, in and of itself, is
sufficient evidence of good
>art? That the most popular book is, by definition,
also the best book
>artisitcally?
Art is the right making of the thing ... what is the goal of
any book? To
be read ... thus the more people who read it ... the more
successful it is.
Now, is it a masterpiece? Maybe, maybe not ... popularity
alone isn't
enough to mark any work as a masterpiece ... that is a piece
of art which
goes on step further and reveals a bit of the universal
truth. For a work
to become "the most popular book" it has to touch the soul of
it's readers
.. and if anything, quality art touches the souls of those
exposed to it.
>I also agree with the flip side, that lack of
popularity does not
>necessarily mean an artist is too good or cutting edge
or etc., to be
>understod by the masses. However, are you claiming
that lack of
>popularity is sufficient evidence of bad
art?
Alone? No, if the work is not readily available and thus
isn't available to
the masses to make a decision on it then a lack of popularity
most likely
reflects this lack of publicity not lack of quality or the
failure of the
right making of the thing. Now ... works such as this tend to
be found
eventually though (I'm sure there are those who fall through
the cracks
...). The author of a non-fiction historical piece that I've
read puts a
bit of perspective on this ... books that have survived the
past in tact
... survived because their contemporaries didn't read them
and thus didn't
wear them out ... however, the popular fiction of the day (he
was
specifically speaking to the revolutionary period of American
history) was
read until it fell apart ... no surprise there considering
the lack of
television and radio.
>And what do you do with an author whose popularity
waxes and wanes over
>time, say his art gets better and worse as time goes
by? I like a lot
>of authors, some popular, some remaindered, but I
would never rank them
>artistically based solely on their sales
figures.
It might be art, but it doesn't have that universalness which
makes it a
masterpiece. I never said anyone should rank anything solely
on it's sales
figures, however, sales figures are a major factor in a
work's artistic
success and cannot be ignored.
----
volente Deo,
Anthony
jackechs@erols.com or ICQ #3717510
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/4640/
I'm a cereal killer on the lam from Special K ... you?
#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.