What if all art was eliminated ??

[LEDPIG]

I'm just wondering if you guys think musicians and artists and other creative people make useful contributions to society? I sometimes wonder if we need these people as much as politicians, doctors, police officers, military, and other folks that make more "tangible" contributions to society.

Was Leonardo Da Vinci really that important, would we have made it, if Ernest Hemmingway worked at a gas station instead of writing.

What do you think, and how would it effect the world if we eliminated all art for 100 years, possibly longer?

Just wondering
Ledpig.

 

[AWMac]

You'd be on a REAL date and not gettin paper cuts?

 

Mac

[lasersailor184]

 



There are two big problems with Art.

First, is that it is subsidized.  While this is a rather common occurrence in our socialistic society, this goes past that.  Artists EXPECT to be subsidized.  They feel that they are due subsidies.  Basically, they are due free, unearned money.

The next problem is that lame roadkill attempts to create something is automatically assumed to be "Art."  No, you're feces smeared canvas is not art.



Past that, my personal qualm with most Artists is that they have a sense of elitism about them.  When you consider the previous two items I listed, the vast majority of artists have nothing to feel elitist about.  Which is why they need to be kicked in the face.

[SkyRock]

Artists EXPECT to be subsidized.   Which is why they need to be kicked in the face.

This proves you are a little boink moron.  By the way, I am an artist, and I like to see you try to kick me in the face 1 v 1! 


PS,  You'd fail miserably!

[Excel1]

What do you think, and how would it effect the world if we eliminated all art for 100 years, possibly longer?

as much as some art may appear to us as pointless or ding bat orientated and the artists up themselves, it's not so much the art that is important but the free thinking behind it that created it.

the only ones to really gain if your suggestion was followed through with would be the control freaks.

[Xargos]

I have no problem with art being taught, as long as math and science are too.  You need both the left and right side of the brain stimulated for a well balanced child.

P.S.  We wouldn't be enjoying Aces High if it wasn't for all of it.

[Leslie]

What do you think, and how would it effect the world if we eliminated all art for 100 years, possibly longer?




Without art, no technological achievement would advance.  This would include engineering and medicine.  We could rely on what we already know, but things would stay as they are presently. 

Complete elimination of art would mean no music, no pictures, no reading material except for tech manuals (without illustrations,) no variation of car designs (all the same,) all clothes the same, all houses the same, all buildings the same, all cities on Earth would look alike with no distinguishing features, all sports teams, military, police, fire depts would have the same uniforms (which would be indistinguishable from everyone else's clothes,) all food packaging would be generic with only text identifying what was inside, tools would have the same handles without variation (including surgical instruments, no curves, etc,) no variation would exist at all.

However, if geometry, trig, algebra, calculus, physics and other math and sciences did not have the visual concepts of lines and curves, triangles, trapezoids, rectangles, circles, spheres, cones, cubes, etc,... along with written symbols including numerals, alphabetic letters, and languages describing how to combine and decipher what they mean scientifically, nothing would exist as we know it today.  So basically, none of the above would exist anyway.

To answer the question, cavemen would be one up on us with their cave paintings, discovery of fire and stone tools.




Les



   

[Holden McGroin]

There are two big problems with Art.

First, is that it is subsidized. 

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were subsidized by the emperors and kings.

Leonardo painted the last supper, Michealangelo painted the sistine chapel: both subsidized by the power of the time.

Thank you emperors and popes: at least you did something right.

[Jackal1]

No porn??????????????? 
Are ya crazy?

[LEDPIG]

What do you think, and how would it effect the world if we eliminated all art for 100 years, possibly longer?




Without art, no technological achievement would advance.  This would include engineering and medicine.  We could rely on what we already know, but things would stay as they are presently. 

Complete elimination of art would mean no music, no pictures, no reading material except for tech manuals (without illustrations,) no variation of car designs (all the same,) all clothes the same, all houses the same, all buildings the same, all cities on Earth would look alike with no distinguishing features, all sports teams, military, police, fire depts would have the same uniforms (which would be indistinguishable from everyone else's clothes,) all food packaging would be generic with only text identifying what was inside, tools would have the same handles without variation (including surgical instruments, no curves, etc,) no variation would exist at all.

However, if geometry, trig, algebra, calculus, physics and other math and sciences did not have the visual concepts of lines and curves, triangles, trapezoids, rectangles, circles, spheres, cones, cubes, etc,... along with written symbols including numerals, alphabetic letters, and languages describing how to combine and decipher what they mean scientifically, nothing would exist as we know it today.  So basically, none of the above would exist anyway.

To answer the question, cavemen would be one up on us with their cave paintings, discovery of fire and stone tools.




Les



   

I think this answer is probably the most in debt and explains it all...

You'd be on a REAL date and not gettin paper cuts?

 

Mac

As far as Mac goes you are an artist, a comedian and you ought to have your own tv show, LaserSailor doesn't want you to have royalties though.

 

[JB88]

yawn.

[LEDPIG]

There are two big problems with Art.

First, is that it is subsidized.  While this is a rather common occurrence in our socialistic society, this goes past that.  Artists EXPECT to be subsidized.  They feel that they are due subsidies.  Basically, they are due free, unearned money.

The next problem is that lame bullpoop attempts to create something is automatically assumed to be "Art."  No, you're feces smeared canvas is not art.



Past that, my personal qualm with most Artists is that they have a sense of elitism about them.  When you consider the previous two items I listed, the vast majority of artists have nothing to feel elitist about.  Which is why they need to be kicked in the face.

I can see you never created anything.

I have my questions about royalties if i believe thats what your talking about. I know about music so i'll say that. I'll bring up Metallica because i think maybe that fits in well to what your saying. Should a group like that recieve royalties everytime somebody uses something they created? Downloads their music or whatever. Idk, part of me says people that are using what they created, should pay them. But if someone creates a chair, for instances should i pay them continually everytime i sit in it?

Maybe i should just pay one flat rate and leave it at that.

The elitism i agree with is bull, thats all i can say.

I would say Albert Einstein for instance was an artist, one of ideas. Did we gain from what he learned, i'd say so. Regardless of how we use and apply his discoveries. America gained a weapon that ended a war and possibly saved millions of it's own peoples lives. Forget all the terrible consequences. We gained another source for powering our society. Some of your computers might be powered by this right now.

As for what Lasersailor said,

He strikes me as someone who knows not what he talks about, that gains from such discoveries and then complains about it, and when given the same creative tools might come up with an interesting plato mold of a cheetoes bag and a Coor's lite beer can....

[john9001]

before you can eliminate art, you first have to define what is art. Good luck with that.

[lazs2]

art is all around us so.. yes.. we "need" it.   art is also what you make of it.   what you see in it.

so what is the big deal?  what is your point ledpig?   

Believe it or not.. not everyone sees the value in the same art as others.. when that is the case.. the "art" is worthless to the ones who don't see it.  but.. everyone sees art in something.   let each decide.

lazs

[LEDPIG]

art is all around us so.. yes.. we "need" it.   art is also what you make of it.   what you see in it.

so what is the big deal?  what is your point ledpig?   

Believe it or not.. not everyone sees the value in the same art as others.. when that is the case.. the "art" is worthless to the ones who don't see it.  but.. everyone sees art in something.   let each decide.

lazs

We pretty much have the same point Lasz...so theres no point.

Well said.....

I just like hypotheticals and theoretical discussions that seem to have no use in practicality, other than for the purpose of thinking.