Terry,
Thank you for your reply. Your post was not paragraphed, so I am assuming paragraphs at certain points.
reply: Fine Art is really short for "FINished Art" in the sense it is complete in and of itself requiring no "utility" other than representing its own identity. The "goodness" or "badness" of art--in my opinion--lies in the intention of the creator of that art. Often, the dividing line is in the money it earns (or doesn't)but, I don't find that valid. An artist has an inherent right to be remunerated so that he/she can live to create more art. The dividing line for me is the "target" of the art itself.
I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that on this deifinition, anyone whose motivation is to produce noble art is not neccessarily stymied by lack of skills or technique. Surely it is neccessary to learn how to paint, sing, play before you can successfully interpret what lies within? I know that you are a gifted keyboard polayer, so let us take as an example Keith Jarrett. Jarrett is well known from his extemporaneous and spontaneous Jazz piano recitals. He will often play solo, for two hours, without any music and no defined idea of what he going to play from moment to moment. He plays like an angel. However, what many people fail to see is the tens of thousands of hours that he has spent practicing his art, before he produces his piece. You know what that is all about I am sure Terry.
My postulation is that good art is not possible without learning and using skills previously deposited in the bank of creativity. That is why I think it impossible to say that there is such a thing as 'good' Rap.
When I had the etching studio, we all quickly discovered we could only create income by responding to the art saleman's feedback. The feeback consisted of telling us the galleries (who purchased the art to sell to customers) wanted this color and that color and this size and that size. If we ignored the request of the ultimate customer we went out of business. Consequently, it became a practical matter of allowing the constraints become the FORM. We could still create whatever it was in our ethos to come up with---only this time with a narrowed resource of size and color.
Like yourself, I owned art galleries for many years, though I always seperated what I considered to be good art from its commercial aspects. In my own experience. I noticed that crap sells very early on on my career. I sold crap in the maingallery, and good art in the lower one. Creativity stands on its own merits and popularity, God knows, is *never* a barometer of good art.
I can't image there can be art without obstacles of enforced form. Duke Ellington's opinon was informed by his lifetime spent with the greatest musicians alive. There were many a "battle of the bands" that left no doubt which was which. The players who have the mysterious quality "X-factor" stand head and shoulders above the merely competent ones. You can see such evident talent in athletics, chess, music, gymnastics, etc. People are born with a genetic predisposition to manipulate a form into a magnificence.
Yes, some have Stardust sprinkled on them and others work hard to reach the stars. Even when I have travelled to Third World nations, in any tiny village, I have found that there is always someone a little 'different' from the others. Their feet may be covered in mud, but you cannot help noting that their eyes see beyond the ordinary.
The greatest movies ever made, in my opinion, were made under constraint of the Hays Office, black and white and limited budgets. Something about form requires a filtering out of "other" possible choices even when the filtering is done by censors.
I agree, as are some of the best photographs ever taken. The Georgian and Victorian painters were disciplined by a limited pallette and it is no mystery as to why some of the most powerful art ever painted came from that era.
Cheers - HS