Replies

Your contention that no one writes a great work for "profit" depends entirely on a private definition of that term.

My definition of profit is not a private one.

The American Heritage Dictionary: "The return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met."

No wonder you can define your way around "profit"!

I stand by the common, standard dictionary definition.

Why did Michaelangelo, a great artist, paint the Sistine Chapel or sculpt David, great works of art? For money, to eat, pay rent - and for that little left over that is the real definition of "profit."

So we do have the same definition: that "little left over."

As I said earlier, Michelangelo was originally contracted to decorate the Chapel in 1505. He was still working on it in 1541, long after his original commission had been spent. The Pauline Chapel which he also painted for money still exists - and no one cares about it. It just wasn't a great work.

The Sistine Chapel, however, he worked on and worked on, pouring his heart and soul into it long after he had been paid.

He took the job for money - but if it had been about money or even profit, he would have banged it out as quickly as possible, done a workmanlike job like he did on the Pauline, and called it a day.

Great art, the Sistines as opposed to the Paulines, has little to do with money in the final analysis.

With respect to art, and I understand that my opinion may not be shared, it can be argued that no masterpieces were produced in the 20th Century. I am a big fan of classical music but the works I keep going back to listen to are by composers such as J.S. Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Handel, and Monteverdi. None of those composers, except maybe Handel (who moved to England), ever came close to striking it rich. I find it hard to listen to any classical piece of music that was produced after about 1910 or so (Mahler).

I'm not sure how that ties into your argument that nobody writes a great work for profit, but that has been my observation. I'm quite sure that if anybody today wrote a symphony that could compare with one written by Beethoven in the early 19th Century, he would be greatly rewarded monetarily. Why then, hasn't anything as good as Beethoven ever been produced in the past 100 years?