On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:20:45 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Fifth, what does it take to be an "artist"? The reason that there are so
many
> starving artists is because there are so many people who consider
themselves
> "artists"!!! What qualifications does it take to be an artist???? How
many
> years do you have to go to school to qualify to be an "artist"? What
examinations
> and how many does it take to be an artist? How do you pay for the cost
of all of
> that school and setting up a practice? You can buy one of the best
guitars you can
> find and a great amp to go along with it and still not approach $10,000.
>
> Finally, if every "artist" alive today dropped off of the face of the
earth, what
> would be the result??
Do you mean if everybody with artistic creativity, or those that express
themselves artisticly, suddenly disappeared? Or all artistic content and /
or stimulus suddenly disappeared?
I suspect the lack of creative culture and stimulus may have reasonably
serious psychological affects on the rest of the world.
> If there were no more dentists, it wouldn't take long before
> people were actually dying from diseases of the mouth!!!
Perhaps given how society and modern life has developed. But go back a few
hundred years, and there were no dentists - and probably far less dietary
requirements, almost certainly some degree of poorer quality of life, or
endurance / seriousness of certain conditions.
Art (in various forms, or guises) has been a pretty much fundamental aspect
of human evolvement. Even caveman drew pictures on cave walls. Without this
sort of outlet in human nature, who's to say what the effects on the
evolution of the humman species would have been.
> Suppose everyone in the
> group Metallash!t were to die tomorrow? How many people would die as a
result.
Perhaps a relatively small number of obsessed fans! ;-)
> The problem you have is that you are equating "artist" with necessity.
To a certain degree, I believe the artistic nature in humans, has been
rather key to the development and evolution of us as a species - I suppose
you could extrapolate that to some degree of necessity.
> I could
> have been a starving artist. I was in a band for years while I was going
to
> school. If we had what it took and or luck, then maybe I'd be a rich
over paid
> rock star today instead of a dentist.
Perhaps you wouldn't whine so much about overpayed groups, then ;-) (Just
havin' a bit of a joke with ya!)
> Art is very important. Don't get me wrong. But it is not essential for
life.
Hmm..., I'm not sure we would have evolved to our present state, without the
traits and expression that "art" tends to get expressed in.
> This world would be a terrible place if it were not for music, theater,
paintings,
> graphics etc. But it isn't oxygen.
Neither is dentistry, to be fair. A few hundred years back, humans still
existed without quality dental care. True enough, perhaps they had
considerably less need, and perhaps some died and suffered - but humans
still survived.
> If we had to we could survive.
That could apply to a whole range of things, and perhaps we would evolve -
but both hypothetical occurences would have reasonable impact on human
development, in my opinion.
> But art is not like becoming a plumber. It does not offer any
guaranties of an
> income.
Neither does being a plumber. You still have to attract buyers of your
service, somehow. I will concede there may be a certain degree of higher
likelihood of success as a plumber, though.
> Lets take the relatively small number artists that are very successful.
We have to
> be talking about billions and billions of dollars a year in total income
(from
> painters, directors, actors, singers, musicians, etc.!! Now lets
eliminate all of
> the people that call themselves "artists", but really do not have talent
by the
> standards of our society.
Is that a call that the "masses" should be able to make? Taking out
resentment, or jealousy, the argument appears to be that you don't think
some people deserve the money they get - an entirely subjective argument.
> If you take what's left and divided the billions and billions of dollars
between
> all of them. There would be NO starving artists!!
And get rid of greed in human nature. There are always gonna be the "haves"
and the "have nots". And probably the "haves" are not gonna want to give up
what they've got, and endeavour to continuely increase what they "have". And
perhaps there are always gonna be the "have nots" that believe they (or some
other worthy group) should have what the "haves" have (if you pardon the
aliteration!) - doesn't necessarily mean this is anything but a subjective
argument, though. And consider for a second the psychological (and I mean
the fundamental) reasons that provoke such thoughts.
> Most importantly, you'd better find yourself a new dentist.
Perhaps this is why you're not a mega successful rock star! ;-) There went a
gleaming possibility of a potential customer! :-)))
Neil
_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
