Wiardgroup

I don't see any problem there.

An interesting case is Raymond Scott. He kept his activites so 
secret, he secreted hiself right out of the historical record!

As artists, by definition, our output should be available to the 
public. This is risky from an ego point of view. Displaying your 
work can potentially make you the target of criticism or derision.

A columnist remarked that society has replaced "true danger", 
that is actual bodily threat, with "fake danger" which is the 
possibility of being embarassed. Many of us are trained to react 
to this "fake danger" as if it were real danger, and we experience 
the same physical reactions and vindictive rage as if we were 
actually physically attacked, rather than just embarassed.

The Arts are the gladitorial arena of this "fake" danger. Art forms 
which have the greatest chance of failure, hence embarassment, 
are considered to be the Highest forms. The Orchestra and 
Ballet are good examples. Since they have large numbers of 
people involved, who must work in tight cooperation, the chance 
of failure is enormous.

Artist who are risk takers, are those for whom the audience do 
not know if they should be embarassed or impressed. Glam 
rock is an example, the band can Rock but they dress like girls, 
how do I react? The audience rewards the artists who put 
themselves in "fake danger" for their amusement (if they 
succeed).

One thing is for certain, everyone finds art boring if there is no 
potential for failure. People leave clubs if the arist is "over 
reheased", since there is no possibility of failure, there is nothing 
to be interested in. For an Artist, risk taking is the only safe 
course.

Another delightful paradox of the human condition.