On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 20:05:20 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 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).
So you're u-turning, slightly, and reconsidering that art, or at least
artistic expression, is pretty essential to the human species?
> > 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 not money, then something else. In essence money is just another symptom
of what we crave. There are few people that simply like money, intrinsically
- by that I mean simply spend adoring hours, gazing lovingly at stacks of
cash.
It's the need that money fulfills, what it provides, and the underlying
reason as to why humans want such things.
> > 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.
I don't dispute this one bit - and to be fair, I actually acknowledged it.
> > > 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.
Surely that being "right" is a subjective call. Is somebody a better person
for being a lowly paid worker with a vocation, or for being hugely
successful without copious talent (again normally a very subjective
measure)? Do are actions, intrinsically, define us - or are they merely
suggestive, but not necessarily conclusive.
That's one of the problems I have with some religions. The concept that
automatically you are a better person, *simply* because you have faith in
some all-powerful deity, regardless of how you morally live your life,
troubles me. Equally the converse that merely your actions define us, too.
The fundamentals of faith pretty much require belief without proof - blind
acceptance, if you will. However, when questioned, some people with faith
explain this by saying they have had some degree of spiritual "proof" if you
will. Surely, then, this is some degree of compromised faith, as they have
had (what they believe) to be some form of corroboration.
Personally, I feel that this is not evidence of moral form, or being
"right", and I wouldn't want to subscribe to a belief that required me to
unquestioningly accept something, with no tangible proof - surely that would
be some sign of ego, and lack of purity in the motives of the belief system
or entity you choose to worship.
Way of the tack, and topic, anyway - but fundamentally what I'm saying is
that the whole "right" and "wrong" thing is often quite pretentious. And I'm
not trying to upset anyones' religious views - merely commentating on how
some belief systems cover their tracks, fill in the blanks, cover their
asses, or perhaps benignly establish their concepts.
I guess ultimately what I'm saying is that I don't believe that humans,
essentially, need a religion, conditioning, or laws, for use to ultimately
judge what is "wrong" or "right" - I personally believe it is something
quite elemental in us. Not necessarily requiring great bounds of
intelligence - but quite simple rationale - the decision on whether
something is "right" or "wrong" I think can be easily addressed by the
introspective question of whether we'd like the same action or activity to
be done by others, or to us.
Society almost caters for this by our laws, by defining what is acceptable,
or so believed by the majority (or at least the majority of the voting
populace).
> 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.
Quite. But some people would argue that the extended life expectancy that we
see in many developed nations, is progress. I'm not condemning it, but to a
certain degree, the concept of older and older people, living under constant
care and needing everything doing for them, as they get into truly old age,
does make me wonder if this is "quality" of life. I'm only saying this when
considering some of my personal relatives and they conditions they now live
under - I honestly wonder if this is "quality" for them, and something they
are happy to sustain, or whether it's almost a case of conscience and
endurement.
> 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.
Perhaps - but my point was simply that having the skill, or trade, is no
guarentee of success - even something like this.
> > 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.
Which was?
> Partly because you have taken it out of
> > context.
How so?
> It is the society we live in that decides what is beautiful and what
> > is ugly.
I would argue that it's us, as individuals. I couldn't give a huh over what
society thinks I should believe is beautiful or ugly.
> What is art and what is dreck. There is no scientific quantitative
> > way to measure art!!
Why should there be?
> 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.
I would argue that individuals make that decision. Those that accept
societies decisions on this are merely mindless sheep (no offence to sheep!
;-) )
> > > 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.
Says who? Who should have the right to make this call? To decide what traits
people should display or exhibit, in order to be successful?
I don't think I like that idea of what people "should" be like, to have
anything.
> But in art, probably many of the best artists
> who have worked hard and sacrificed are still going to be the have nots.
To be fair, though, that's all down to personal choices and pursuits. There
are no guarentees in life for success.
> 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
Perhaps. There may be other factors, too. Drive, determination, to a certain
degree - intelligence, in realisation of what is likely to be successful for
them.
> 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?
Quite. Doesn't mean he doesn't deserve what he gets, necessarily - or that
we are entitled to make that call, or that he doesn't work hard at what he
does - this is no particular comment on that actor - I know nothing, really,
about his success or work ethic.
> Then there is the "casting couch". I wonder how people (both male as
well as
> female) got their big break by.......well you know.
Indeed - but they chose to be actors - they could have chosen another
profession.
> > > 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.
Quite! ;-)
And of course, if you had - or for that matter do - make it, you'd promote
the use of minidisc for your chart-topping and incredibly successful music!
(just thought I'd throw in at least one remotely on-topic comment! ;-))
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]
