So, I don't have a Tuesday Too for today because I'm getting ready for a final exam tomorrow. And I'm worried about a meeting at work. I don't think it'll be bad, and I'm not worried a lot, but I'm worried a little, and that counts too.
But I had an epiphany today, and it is going to make people mad to hear me say this, but the single thought that gelled in my head this evening is that art is not important in the way that people say that it is important.
Art is usually bad. Or subpar. Art rarely changes the world. Art is best used as a tool for personal development. And in that role it fills an important function, but not in the life-changing, world-shattering way that I had somehow thought it meant when I was growing up, practicing various flavors of art.
Most art sucks. But that's okay. I wish someone had told me this twenty years ago.
"Art rarely changes the
"Art rarely changes the world"
I find art in everything, even the landscaping on every property I see. Believe me when I pass a well kept property in a dingy area it enlgihtens me. Maybe the neighbors in those areas will do the same and pass it on to the next just like a smile is passe don from one to the next. Chad, can you see art in a smile? Maybe when you can you can see that something ass easy as a smile used enough can change the world.
And all of the art that you
And all of the art that you see in every circumstance of every day leads you to create a website that claims to be of an IICRC certified firm, when in fact, it probably isn't. Because there's nothing really behind your 'firm', is there? Because if there were, you'd not be hiding in New York (or wherever) behind anonymous web forms, anonymous toll-free numbers, and anonymous domain registries pretending to be three different companies, none of which seem to coincide with any results of IICRC-certified firms on the IICRC website.
So, the art that's in my smiling face right now, what did it change?
That's my fault. I should
That's my fault. I should have warned you. It's about twenty years ago when I started to realize that art does not change the world, or at least not for the better. A few more years, and it was basically confirmed. It doesn’t matter what you consider art. The constant use of the term “awareness” is an indicator. An artist consistently calls for “awareness” of a problem. An artist also tends to promote solutions that usually have no basis in reality. Unfortunately, for some reason, art has been removed from sound science, and especially from common sense, since the time of the Renaissance.
My personal favorite example of “art” is one from “60 Minutes” years ago: an “artist” placed a basketball inside a standard fish aquarium, I suppose a 40 to 60 gallon aquarium, one that many have in their home, sans water, and called it “art”. Morley Safer quickly, and rightfully so, posed the question of what makes a basketball in an aquarium “art”, and the so-called "artist" promptly replied: “because it has my name on it”.
People should think about that the next time they try to see the “relevance” in any given piece of “art”, regardless of the medium.
The whole thing is a bunch of pretentiousness of those who have little knowledge of anything else.
Well, I belatedly answered
Well, I belatedly answered your previous Tuesday Too here. I do know that jf cates had started another blogspot blog called Lab Rat a couple years ago, but for the life of me, I can't find its url.
About art: I've been recently watching a documentary series on art and despite the title, I think there are some interesting premises--particularly that art is influenced by biology and culture. Especially culture--to the extent that one could say that art is really just some cultural by-product and not something particularly original and profound (well, it could be, but most of it isn't).
Oops. That was me.
Oops. That was me.