Fred Astaire

I saw Fred Astaire being interviewed tonight on a History of RKO films. At the end of the interview he was asked if he thought he was, at the time, making films that would be considered in later years to be works of art. He grinned in that modest manner he perfected and said "O no, nothing like that; we were just trying to make a buck."
Often works of art come from some crafstman's effort to do a job of work successfully. I am thinking of Mozart who was described by a learned musicologist a few years ago as a "jobbing composer". In other words he was just trying to make a buck.
I feel there are too many "artists" trying their damndest to produce a work of art regardless of whether or not it will be liked and enjoyed; they tend to think in terms of "how will it be received by the critics?" rather than "how will the general public receive it?". Sometimes works of art are produced when artists follow either of these precepts, sometimes not. As William Goldman said of Hollywood: "No knows anything." No one can tell if a work of art is produced by design or luck but if one is it is usually the result of a good deal of hard work.
I think it was Pauline Kael who was offended by the central idea of the film "Amadeus": that unlike his rival he was able to produce his compositions as if he were doing something easy. It is never easy. Which brings to mind the reply Whistler gave in court, when defending himself against the charge by John Ruskin of "throwing a pot of paint in the public's face", to the question: "How long did it take you to paint one of your Nocturn's?" Whistler replied to the effect that while it didn't take long to execute, it was the result of a lifetime's work experience.
He won the case.