Artists don’t have to make money.

I’m closer to being an artist than I thought, according to Coppola.

Whilst thinking about new-media art and meaning, I came across this interview with Francis Ford Coppola. He says:

Even in the early days of the movies, they didn’t know how to make movies. They had an image and it moved and the audience loved it. You saw a train coming into the station, and just to see motion was beautiful.

I think we are in the early days of media art, because just to see an intricately detailed generative work can be beautiful. But not for much longer, I suspect.

Perhaps there is a natural progression from “this new medium is the artwork” … through to a “the medium must now carry the artwork”. Two very different things.

Anyway, that Coppola interview has many gems in it …

In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you’d be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties.

The composer as conductor brings orchestral music a little closer to electroacoustic music … at least as far as the division of labour goes.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Artists don’t have to make money.

  1. Jason says:

    Yeah, good one.

    Coppola says “the cinema is very young. It’s only 100 years old.” I’m a philosopher of science in my day job, and I often think that about science. It’s only 300 years old. We haven’t got much idea about how to do it yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s