|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Nov 12th, 2003 04:29 PM | |||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
||
| Nov 11th, 2003 12:27 PM | |||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
DaVinci supposedly wasn't actually a pagan. I think heretic would be a better term. |
||
| Nov 11th, 2003 04:19 AM | |||
| the_dudefather |
writing a british sitcom is my 'back-up' dream career to being a games developer. i would love to do both somehow 
|
||
| Nov 11th, 2003 02:43 AM | |||
| Big Papa Goat |
Quote:
|
||
| Nov 10th, 2003 11:53 PM | |||
| El Blanco |
DaVinci supposedly wasn't actually a pagan. I think pagan would be a better term. He didn't exactly sunscribe to the Christian view of God and such, but he was hardly pagan. And, if you are to believe some books that have come out in the last 2 decades, you would know about the rumors of the symbols he put in his paintings. |
||
| Nov 10th, 2003 07:01 PM | |||
| soundtest | max summed it up - i say hack too | ||
| Nov 10th, 2003 06:57 PM | |||
| Perndog | I think if DaVinci wasn't a Christian (I wouldn't know) he was less selling out for money than making sure he didn't get hanged. The Church wasn't too friendly to heathens in those days. | ||
| Nov 10th, 2003 05:00 PM | |||
| kellychaos |
I know this is about writing but even DaVinci produced commissioned work for the Roman Catholic church and his religious beliefs ran more to the paganistic. Can't get closer to selling out than your religious views. Besides, can't one produce work that is both creative and profound while still appealing to a mass audience? ... probably not, in most cases. 
|
||
| Nov 10th, 2003 04:31 PM | |||
| El Blanco |
I wouldn't call SNL writers "hacks". They do put out some crap, but I think that is just a n issue of the sheer volume they write. Even Poe had is bad days. Sitcoms? I agree with Kaufmann about them being the lowest form of comedy. Although, they do have their place. I would have to say, I'd be a hack with a paycheck. A man's gotta eat. |
||
| Nov 10th, 2003 01:47 PM | |||
| Perndog |
A hack who writes quality material on the side, like Max says. Or in my case, a pop star who writes good music on the side. 
|
||
| Nov 10th, 2003 01:36 PM | |||
| The_Rorschach | A hack. | ||
| Nov 10th, 2003 11:40 AM | |||
| ScruU2wice |
Dammit this is just the question i was asking myself. On one hand what max says is true, it is always nice to be able to afford to live. On the other though i feel that i don't care about anything once i start expressing myself through art and self expression. This is one of those questions that i asked when i was contimplating studying further into art and drop my language classes. Either way i still think that if i went one way and not the other i wouldn't be happy with my life, regardless. |
||
| Nov 10th, 2003 11:33 AM | |||
| mburbank |
Hack, most deffinitely. Being a starving artist will never enable hackdom, but the reverse is quite true. A hack with money can pay his bills, feed his kids and write under another name, or use another name for his hackdom. It's a pathetic small amount, but I've sold stuff I wouldn't want my real name attatched to. Of course, famous great writer, rich and beloved by all is preferable to either choice. |
||
| Nov 10th, 2003 11:13 AM | |||
| Anonymous |
Writing: A question Say that your career of choice was writing. Would you want to be a hack writer, writing for sitcoms, or pro wrestling, or SNL, who makes a lot of money but will ultimately be remembered not for the good stuff you wrote, but for your tepid characters like the gay neighbor? Conversely, would you want to be a writer writing wonderful pieces, things that were appreciated by your fanbase, and pieces that you enjoyed writing, but pieces that would hardly make you any money at all? |
||
