Blog #5 p. 69-70 TT

I have no idea how to organize my thoughts on all this- hopefully it is comprehensible in the end. This chapter really made me think. Yeah, an artist produces art, and it is up to the people to decide if they find it trashy or tasteful. I got that it depends on the context in which it is received. As for the whole moral transcendental values idea, but I didn't really like what Jeffrey Hart had to say about what classes are quality and what you just might be wasting your money on (he mentioned film... i'm a film major).
I don't think the artist is ever in control of the context in which people use or recieve their art. Sometimes you'd think that a musician might write a song with a certain type of people in mind as an audience but then there are the other people who listen to the song and hate it because they aren't interested in what it has to say. I don't think that is bad though. I think it documents the culture--yes, today a lot of the things people entertain themselves with is considered trash compared to the mona lisa, but it still represents our time. A lot of art that we now consider to be great wasn't appreciated until much past its own time. Who is to say that our "trash" entertainment, what is popular, won't be viewed as great 1000 years from now? The fashion style of the 70-80's took a little break until now it is suddenly considered fashionable again.
The only way that I can think of REALLY knowing whether something is an original or not is it being something so different from anything you've ever seen before. But, then again, what is original now a days? I've seen things in movies and then watched old movies in my History of cinema classes and thought to myself, "Wow, so that's where Tim Burton probably got his inspiration!" I don't think that by Tim Burton possibly getting inspiration from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari deems The Nightmare Before Christmas pop culture trash, because he used this possible inspiration in his own way. So that is where I suppose the line is drawn.