Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips
No. The artist has no debt to the audience. In a collective and expensive art form ala tv you can make the argument that the artist has a debt to the producer, but the audience is removed from the equation as far as the artist is concerned.
I can only talk about my own work as a theatre artist, where I have a hope that the audience has an experience while watching my work. The type of experience will vary and often I don't care so long as it's an immediate experience. What I never do is try to figure out what the audience wants and then go about creating my work.
Chasing the expectations of the audience is a recipe for shitty art. The artist has to produce the work and then present it to an audience come what may.
The artist owes his existence to no one.
|
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about "chasing an audience's expectations." I'm pointing out that there is an expectation that there will BE an audience. Otherwise, is it art? If you perform a play, and don't let anybody into the theater, what is that?