Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LEDPIG on March 20, 2008, 11:44:00 PM
-
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.
:salute
-
You'd be on a REAL date and not gettin paper cuts?
:D
Mac
-
:rofl
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.
-
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! :aok
PS, You'd fail miserably! :rock
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
No porn??????????????? :O
Are ya crazy?
-
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?
:D
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.
:D :rofl
-
yawn.
-
:rofl
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....
-
before you can eliminate art, you first have to define what is art. Good luck with that.
-
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
-
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.
-
well.. I guess that is the point.. that art is an individual thing.. of "the people" and not the state. I am all for the separation of art and state.
lazs
-
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.
Royalties are paid when the music is played or performed in public, and for each copy of the music produced; so the incentive for a songwriter is to write good music that will be performed and sold to generate income. Royalties are not paid just for listening to a cd you've purchased.
There is one particular album I've purchased over and over because the formats keep changing...LP, 8 track, cassette, CD, but the music is THAT good.
-
The statement made earlier that many of the most famous Renaissance artists were "subsidized" by popes and emperors overlooks one important fact: those artists had already established themselves as people of real talent in the private sector. Popes and emperors did not hire artistic bums; they wanted only the best. Pop art would not have appealed to them: that's why Michaelangelo was chosen to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and not Michel Tortellini.
In my opinion, one reason so few "modern artists" follow the old classical school, is because they do not have the math skills necessary to paint a scene using correct perspective. They lack the discipline to devote themselves to a painting that takes weeks to complete.
The same lack of discipline and paucity of knowledge about music and its timing, is one reason so many modern musicians cannot compose a lengthy musical piece without making extensive use of codas, codas with key changes, choruses with codas and key changes, and every ending up an octave and LOUD.
Art should, thus, be unsubsidized by the government....that way, if it doesn't appeal to the masses or to some wealthy patron, it will die a swift death.
-
The inclination to create metaphorical representations of ideas that we find significant or provocative is fundamental to human nature. It can be argued that the motivation to create art is the one distinguishing characteristic of human thought. Without the ability to communicate on a level outside of the literal we would not have evolved past the level of mindless simians.
-
I agree with thruster. I think art is what makes us human. Without art we would be no more than another form of animal. Art is the mark of civilisation. Once we have the basics, food, water, shelter. People begin to look around for more. The first thing cavemen did was paint the walls of his cave. What's more they probably sang (grunted) songs, played music and told stories. All of that is art, it sepearates us from the animals.
I often think there is a fundamental misunderstanding among many people as to what 'art' actually means. Many people think of art, as if it was only about paintings and sculpture. But art is everywhere around us. Everything we buy has some form of artistic input. The cars we drive, the planes we fly in. It's endless.
Also, art is more than images or shapes. We have the art of driving, the art of business, the art of war. Art is anything we do, not easily definable in scientific terms. Which is in fact most things.
-
If there's one thing I hate about art, it's talking about it.
-
Sorta like dancing about architecture?
-
Anybody who excels at any discipline is an artist. Engineering, science, medicine, law if approached with enough passion, originality and creativity all rise to the level of art.
Art is expression, plain and simple. Some people do their jobs simply to get the job done. Certain people put themselves, their heart, their soul into the job. Therein lies the boundary between artistic expression and basic execution.
-
If there's one thing I hate about art, it's talking about it.
Me too. What kind of art do you hate the most when it comes to talking about it?
:devil
-
I guess if art was banned we woulnd't have Aces High. Waffle, Pyro, Skuzzy, HiTech are artists when you think about it.
We'd all be mighty bored without them..... :)
-
you can't ban art.. it is all around us.
lazs
-
you can't ban art.. it is all around us.
lazs
yup.
but it can certainly be "missed"
-
Hmmm,
I write and get paid for it.
no subsidy though if I write junk the publisher wont pay for it....
Of course you could play AH with little "X"s instead of art.
Regards,
Kevin
:rofl
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 think it's a fallacy to believe that only professional or well known artists produce "art". I believe it's within every one of us to create, even if it's only a bit of humor that brings a smile to the face of your family or friend. Take away that ability from all of us and the world would be a dreary place indeed.
-
this thread alone is a kind of "art.
some like it, some not.
as a graphic designer, right now i design packages for different products
in the hope you people buy it instead of the product to the left or right.
everyone is uniqe and have his own art
and that is what makes us Humans, imagine we all would look, think, and work same, horrible!
-
Of course you could play AH with little "X"s instead of art.
We have done that already. It was called Airwarrior. :)
-
The statement made earlier that many of the most famous Renaissance artists were "subsidized" by popes and emperors overlooks one important fact: those artists had already established themselves as people of real talent in the private sector. Popes and emperors did not hire artistic bums; they wanted only the best. Pop art would not have appealed to them: that's why Michaelangelo was chosen to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and not Michel Tortellini.
Yet they were subsidized. It is not the subsidy that is the problem but the taste of those who issue subsidies.
Taste is not censorship, it is sound judgement.
Tortellini was known more for his pasta than his art.
-
Was Leonardo Da Vinci really that important
davinci was FAR more than an artist, he was also one of the greatest scientists of all time for his era, i mean without him, we'd probably be set back 1-2 decades in science give or take
-
Life would absolutely suck without hardcore metal to scream along with in traffic.
-
I'm sure Lazs, Ripsnort and Holden along with several others here would be doing backflips to eliminate all art endowments and channel the money straight to Halliburton.
-
Talk about a Hijack... we went from art to hallibuton in 3 pages.
Back on subject....
How many of you guys have ever risen from the toilet and exclaimed..
"Dammmm... That's a work of Art!!!"
:aok
Mac
-
Talk about a Hijack... we went from art to hallibuton in 3 pages.
rpm is a work of art all his own Mac. :)
-
RIAA/MPAA are strongly driving the notion of eliminating all art from the society through oppressive licensing and destroying fair use.
-
I'm sure Lazs, Ripsnort and Holden along with several others here would be doing backflips to eliminate all art endowments and channel the money straight to Halliburton.
You, sir, are a piece of work. Not sure if its art though.
-
I'm sure Lazs, Ripsnort and Holden along with several others here would be doing backflips to eliminate all art endowments and channel the money straight to Halliburton.
I guess you didn't read my posts supporting art endowments in this thread.
-
RPM.. I do backflips any time that the government gets smaller and spends less money on anything but the courts and the defense.
I don't think the government knows what I should spend my money on for art or.. who does know. since there are enough morons with cash to subsidize rap with their allowance and taco bell money.. I am sure the more legit art has no problem.
lazs
-
Life would absolutely suck without hardcore metal to scream along with in traffic.
You are wise grasshopper, for one so young.
-
since there are enough morons with cash to subsidize rap with their allowance and taco bell money.. I am sure the more legit art has no problem.
i was gonna say that myself, but was too lazy to type it, thank you
:aok
-
I guess you didn't read my posts supporting art endowments in this thread.
Musta missed it. I stand corrected, sir. :)
-
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ndi0224l.jpg