> 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?
No! certainly not all artistic content. When you get down to things that basic,
art is like food (at least that's my opinion).
>
> I suspect the lack of creative culture and stimulus may have reasonably
> serious psychological affects on the rest of the world.
No doubt. I fully agree. But I'm not suggesting that. I'm talking about
situations were it is no longer about the art, but about the money.
> 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.
People did die from dental disease in ancient times. There are situations that
exist today where people have died as a result of failing to seek treatment.
This is especially true of people with certain heart disorders. People die
today from bacterial endocarditis. An infection in the heart cause by bacteria
that enter the blood stream from you "periodontium" (gums).
> 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.
Again, no disagreement.
> > 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! ;-)
Yeah, but the fans that they are suing (can you believe that!!! a group
actually suing the very people that made them what they are and rich too) would
be much better off with them dead. All the stress of a law suit would be
lifted.
> > 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!)
I'm sure that I wouldn't be whining at all. I'd be laughing all the way to the
bank. But that doesn't mean that I would be right.
> > 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.
>
There is no doubt that things would be a lot different. I'd say a lack of art
would have affected our development adversely. But we could have survived.
The Nazis sat around listening to the classics while they sent millions of
innocent people to the gas chambers. Art certainly didn't make them better
people.
> > 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.
With our present diet I'm not sure that as many people would have survived if
they ate the crap we ate to day. Also, I don't think a life expectancy of 20,
partially caused by among other medical needs, lack of dental care, is much of a
life.
> > 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.
Have you ever tried to get a plumber when you need one. Good plumbers are in
demand and have a million times better chance of finding work then an artist.
>
>
> > 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.
> You totally missed you point. Partly because you have taken it out of
> context. It is the society we live in that decides what is beautiful and what
> is ugly. What is art and what is dreck. There is no scientific quantitative
> way to measure art!!
What we consider crap today, may be thought of as the greatest art in a few
hundred years. Many of the great classics were not appreciated in their own
life time. There is no way to measure what is considered art, good art, poor
art and not art at all. Society makes that decision.
> > 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.
Too deep for me. If someone does not deserve to be a have (say they are lazy),
then they don't deserve anything. But in art, probably many of the best artists
who have worked hard and sacrificed are still going to be the have nots.
Luck is probably one of the largest factors in determining the success of an
artist. I'll bet you have a friend or relative that is a better singer, actor,
painter or what ever, then many of the so called "successful" artists. They
just didn't have luck
The next factor is connections. I happen to think that Michael Douglas is a
fine actor. Love most of his work. But if he had been Joe Schmoe's son, what
would the likelihood of him being "discovered" be?
Then there is the "casting couch". I wonder how people (both male as well as
female) got their big break by.......well you know.
> > 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! :-)))
>
There are only two reasons why I'm not a mega Rock star. Unfortunately the
second is less of a reason than the first. The first is that no one
"discovered" us and we had no connections. The second is that I suck. But
considering the amount of mega rock stars that suck, I'm not sure that matters.
> I live for dentistry though. I really love what I do. No I don't like seeing
> people with bad teeth and in pain. But I am not responsible for putting it
> there. My job is only to make it better.
Unfortunately many careers exist because of the misfortune of others. I don't
pray every night that 10 more people in my town are going to need to have
extensive treatment. I exist because someone has to help these people.
I really don't think that for the most part we are in disagreement. It is hard
to express yourself through e mail.
BTW, I got my 10 80 minute blank MDs and one free 74 min in the mail today for
$14.00. (Have to try and keep this on topic anyway I can). Thanks Peter.
Regards,
Larry
>
> 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]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
