Purpose of art
ilya_sha...@yahoo.com
egotistical.
My response: So what that some artists are egotistical. Egotism is far
from the worst sin. Cruelty, ignorance, destructiveness, pettiness,
viciousness, shallow thinking, anal retentiveness and oppressiveness
are far, far worse.
Bill Gates is regarded an egomaniac. That did not prevent him from
creating one of the greatest enterprises in history, nor does it
prevent him from doing wonderful philanthropic work in Africa and in
American libraries. Artists the only egotists? I think not. I find that
doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and especially programmers and engineers
are far, far worse in that regard - and unlike artists, who tend to be
free spirits and allow other people the freedom they seek, these use
heavy-handed, abrasive, abusive, emotionally and physically violent
tactics to force their ignorant ways and hideousness down other
people's throats.
There was a person who barged into alt.romance shouting about how much
he hated artists. He said that they were stupid, as they could not
program Java. Now what in the world could be possibly more ignorant or
narcissistic than to measure people in other occupations according to
the skill in which you specialize? Can you conduct brain surgery?
Negotiate peace among warring tribes? Fly an F-15? Track down
murderers? And who is stupid: Someone who specializes in what he does
and lets others specialize in what they do, or someone who claims that
his skill is the measure of all accomplishment and intelligence and
sneers on people who do something else?
I've seen this again and again, in programmers and engineers
especially, but also in many cases in doctors and military personnel.
They believe that they are the only important people in the world, and
that everyone else is disposable. They are not the only important
people in the world, and everyone else is not disposable. Without
politics and law enforcement there could be no business or engineering;
nor without education, nor without the media, nor without medicine and
law and - yes - art.
What is the purpose of art then? It is to enrich our existence. It is
to lend color, quality, inspiration and wisdom to human experience,
enriching people's inner worlds and making it possible for them to
develop and share in their relationships the inner beauty developed
through art, and through the process of sharing, appreciating and
living within that beauty to make possible a happy, rich, lovely,
gallant existence. It is to develop emotions and craft them into
magnificence - magnificence that imparts its riches to those in one's
path and crafts human experience into resplendor.
What is another purpose of art? To create a magnificent civilization,
tapping into the endless supply of talent and inspiration and wisdom
and ingenuity to produce masterpieces in all areas of human endeavor:
>From architecture, engineering and technology to literature, music,
sculpture, painting, photography and graphic design. It is to create
environments of which future generations will be proud - environments
full of masterpieces and inspired creations - environments that are
stimulating and rich and complete and invigorating and that take human
experience to a higher plateau.
Now many of these benefits are hard to measure, but that does not make
them any less meaningful. A culture that has a developed sense of
beauty, taste and artistic endeavor possesses emotional and
interpersonal richness that elevates human experience out of
internecine conflict and feudalism and pettiness and brutality and into
a way of living that is worthwhile. It inspires people to develop inner
beauty and share it in relationships and their interactions, thus
creating a beautiful life for everyone who undergoes this development.
It is, indeed, the flower and jewel of the civilization: Its
consummation, justification and unfoldment. And if a person who
produces such things feel some kind of sense of pride in producing such
work, then that person has every right to do so.
Ilya Shambat
Jill
<ilya_sha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It is a common perception in America that artists tend to be
>egotistical.
It might be a common perception in other countries as well :)
>My response: So what that some artists are egotistical. Egotism is far
>from the worst sin. Cruelty, ignorance, destructiveness, pettiness,
>viciousness, shallow thinking, anal retentiveness and oppressiveness
>are far, far worse.
I agree.
>Bill Gates is regarded an egomaniac. That did not prevent him from
Well, but he _is_ :) The man is controlling, narsissistic and
self centered from all interviews and articles I've ever seen/
heard.
>creating one of the greatest enterprises in history, nor does it
Of course not. The head honcho from walmart is just as bad or
worse (well, was). In fact, given that walmart is a more successful
organization maybe he was worse. Being able to do so well
doesn't mean you can't also be something else. In fact, it
might be a requirement. Most people I can think of off the top
of my head who are very successful in business are a lot like
Gates.
>prevent him from doing wonderful philanthropic work in Africa and in
>American libraries. Artists the only egotists? I think not. I find that
And schools. Of course that isn't all that altruistic but it is
still good work.
>doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and especially programmers and engineers
Really. I know of no programmers or engineers who are egotists.
Stubborn and a bit too focused sure but not all that egotistical.
I'm married to one who is both of these and he isn't egotistical.
No more than anyone else. But he IS stubborn!!!!
>are far, far worse in that regard - and unlike artists, who tend to be
>free spirits and allow other people the freedom they seek, these use
Really? Not all artists. Many artists I've met seem to think their
style is _the_ style and other people are just dabbling.
>heavy-handed, abrasive, abusive, emotionally and physically violent
>tactics to force their ignorant ways and hideousness down other
>people's throats.
>
>There was a person who barged into alt.romance shouting about how much
>he hated artists. He said that they were stupid, as they could not
>program Java. Now what in the world could be possibly more ignorant or
Hee hee, _I_ can't program Jave either. I'm not an artist or a
programmer or an engineer.
>narcissistic than to measure people in other occupations according to
>the skill in which you specialize? Can you conduct brain surgery?
>Negotiate peace among warring tribes? Fly an F-15? Track down
>murderers? And who is stupid: Someone who specializes in what he does
>and lets others specialize in what they do, or someone who claims that
>his skill is the measure of all accomplishment and intelligence and
>sneers on people who do something else?
I agree.
>I've seen this again and again, in programmers and engineers
>especially, but also in many cases in doctors and military personnel.
>They believe that they are the only important people in the world, and
>that everyone else is disposable. They are not the only important
>people in the world, and everyone else is not disposable. Without
>politics and law enforcement there could be no business or engineering;
>nor without education, nor without the media, nor without medicine and
>law and - yes - art.
Well, most likely what you say above is just another example of
what you are complaining about. People are people first. They
are unique individuals. SOME people are x or y or z. They
may _also_ be a or b or c. But I don't think that _most_
people of one category are alike in these ways. I do think
a person has to have a certain aptitude in order to do well
in any given area and so like minded people will clump together
because of these similarities, but I don't agree that artists
are egotistical or engineers are or...
>What is the purpose of art then? It is to enrich our existence. It is
I've never really found the purpose of art myself. I don't find
that it enriches my existence. It usually means one more thing I
have to dust *wry grin* I prefer as little art as possible in my
house.
>to lend color, quality, inspiration and wisdom to human experience,
>enriching people's inner worlds and making it possible for them to
>develop and share in their relationships the inner beauty developed
>through art, and through the process of sharing, appreciating and
>living within that beauty to make possible a happy, rich, lovely,
>gallant existence. It is to develop emotions and craft them into
>magnificence - magnificence that imparts its riches to those in one's
>path and crafts human experience into resplendor.
I think this is what _you_ see art to be for. To me, art is
kind of useless. By art here I specifically mean paintings,
pictures, sculptures. I find much use in music, books and
stuff like that. Less so in plays and other performances.
>What is another purpose of art? To create a magnificent civilization,
>tapping into the endless supply of talent and inspiration and wisdom
>and ingenuity to produce masterpieces in all areas of human endeavor:
>>From architecture, engineering and technology to literature, music,
>sculpture, painting, photography and graphic design. It is to create
>environments of which future generations will be proud - environments
>full of masterpieces and inspired creations - environments that are
>stimulating and rich and complete and invigorating and that take human
>experience to a higher plateau.
But most of what you list as art isn't found in ancient societies
(at least not that we know). I'm thinking of the beaker people in
europe or the cave man era. Stuff that old. Those people didn't
leave any evidence of all of this art you mention and yet I am
VERY impressed with them. I don't think I need art to be proud of
a society.
>Now many of these benefits are hard to measure, but that does not make
>them any less meaningful. A culture that has a developed sense of
>beauty, taste and artistic endeavor possesses emotional and
>interpersonal richness that elevates human experience out of
>internecine conflict and feudalism and pettiness and brutality and into
>a way of living that is worthwhile. It inspires people to develop inner
But many very famous pieces of art were done during times of
feudalism and brutality in europe (for example). I don't think
being a 'higher' people and art go together, imo.
>beauty and share it in relationships and their interactions, thus
>creating a beautiful life for everyone who undergoes this development.
>
>It is, indeed, the flower and jewel of the civilization: Its
>consummation, justification and unfoldment. And if a person who
>produces such things feel some kind of sense of pride in producing such
>work, then that person has every right to do so.
>
>Ilya Shambat
This I agree with completely. A person who produces something that
expresses what they want to express should definitely feel proud
of their accomplishment!
Rainbow Colors (Jill)
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The colors blend, the edges soften. Swirling and mixing
we are becoming white light.
ji...@tuells.org
astri
> Well, most likely what you say above is just another example of
> what you are complaining about. People are people first. They
> are unique individuals. SOME people are x or y or z. They
> may _also_ be a or b or c. But I don't think that _most_
> people of one category are alike in these ways. I do think
> a person has to have a certain aptitude in order to do well
> in any given area and so like minded people will clump together
> because of these similarities, but I don't agree that artists
> are egotistical or engineers are or...
um, jill.....
do you realize that...umm.... that the idea you are expressing in the above
paragraph expresses...ummmm...amibi
ambig
ambiguity?
-- astri
<duck and run>
Jill
Oh pashaw. I can do ambiguity real well now that I'm integrated
*wicked grin*