![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Dec. 10th, 2008 10:09 pmOkay, this was originally a comment to an entry in my friends list, but the original writer had friendslocked the entry before I had the time to hit send. This is about Pete Wentz' and Travis McCoy's art exhibition in L.A. Basically the two spend two weeks walling themselves in, drinking and making some serious arts and crafts projects during the time.
Something isn't art just because you have money enough or fame enough to display it in a gallery. It would have been better if they would have called them arts and crafts instead and sold the pieces for charity on eBay or something.
On the other hand, why should an artist, a musician, only stay in the area they know? When you try something new, it probably is crap, at least at first, but that doesn't necessarily make it not art; it makes just crap art. For example, how many fans are interested in "Moustachette" because it should be an interesting short film by new, aspiring film makers, and how many is interested in it because it stars Patrick and Pete? Is it a categorically bad thing that people get extra audience and artistic credit because they already have fame and audience with emotional attachment to their works?
On other things. I bought a Finnish rock magazine Rumba because it had an original Fall Out Boy interview. It was pretty basic, with fun ditbits like the Spanish construction guys securing the stage lights in Angels and Kings Barcelona only with tape and that they were lucky that no lights fell down.
Anyway: This brought in the lols:
Something isn't art just because you have money enough or fame enough to display it in a gallery. It would have been better if they would have called them arts and crafts instead and sold the pieces for charity on eBay or something.
On the other hand, why should an artist, a musician, only stay in the area they know? When you try something new, it probably is crap, at least at first, but that doesn't necessarily make it not art; it makes just crap art. For example, how many fans are interested in "Moustachette" because it should be an interesting short film by new, aspiring film makers, and how many is interested in it because it stars Patrick and Pete? Is it a categorically bad thing that people get extra audience and artistic credit because they already have fame and audience with emotional attachment to their works?
On other things. I bought a Finnish rock magazine Rumba because it had an original Fall Out Boy interview. It was pretty basic, with fun ditbits like the Spanish construction guys securing the stage lights in Angels and Kings Barcelona only with tape and that they were lucky that no lights fell down.
Anyway: This brought in the lols:
- Anyone else in the band have kids?
Everyone shake their heads.
"Well, it's possible", Hurley says.
