Sep 24th 2006 4:28PM So let me get this straight: everyone else who does work is allowed to make money for their work, but artists are supposed to forego all their renumeration, keep living as they did when no one was paying for their work and DONATE their works so that others can benefit from their art?
Who's missing the point here? Art is not something that just "happens." Art is a product that takes a lot of education, practice, and mastery.
Would that every profession would just donate their work for the good of all. Or is it that artists are somehow so special they can just work for nothing? Get real!
Sep 21st 2006 11:52AM Don't be silly Joey--do you have any idea how much Angelina already regularly gives from the "ridiculous amount of money" she says she makes? $226,000 is a fraction of pennies compared to that.
I saw the show and the painting--it's moving--and as art is supposed to--may move some viewers it to reach in their pockets and cough up a fraction of what they make for world hunger.
I can see why it would mean even more to someone who dedicates so much of her own money, time, and energy to publicizing and raising consciousness on exactly that disparity, as well as fund-raising, and actually personally funding.