Imagine if you will a world where rock musicians were no longer the superstars that they are today. Instead of headlining tours, dating models and making millions of dollars musicians would surround themselves in fine art. Through study and a liberal arts education these rock musicians would become respected Romantic artists. Thus placing rock in the same categories of other Romantic arts like sculpture and poetry. Sounds like a perfect plan, as perfect as communism.
             Comparing rock music to a fine art is like comparing an apple to an orange. Rock is an art form but totally different aesthetically. Rock music is meant to be both artistic and fun, it is purely entertainment and its aesthetic value should be left up to the fans alone. Rock musicians are supposed to get in trouble, sleep with a lot of women and do a lot of drugs. Imagine if rock stars didn't do the absurd things we see them do on a regular basis. What would we watch on behind the music? If it were up to Camila Paglia we would see our rock stars drawing psychedelic watercolor paintings and reciting poetry on prime time cable television.
             In Camille Paglia's work "Endangered Rock" she claims rock musicians are being corrupted by fame, wealth and the overall commercialization of rock music. Paglia treats rock and roll as a pure art form that has been corrupted only in recent years. She believes the best way to stop this corruption is for rock musicians to be trained like any other Romantic artist. In order to do this Paglia feels the government should support rock music by using subsides and private grants to fund the work of rock musicians.
             Paglia's article was obviously very flawed featuring half-truths and a very selective history of rock. Luckily Theodore Gracyk stepped in to put the story straight. In his article "Romanticizing Rock Music" Gracyk does sympathize with rock having an aesthetic value, but it simply does not possess the same aesthet...