Is It Art?

Turbo · Feb 19, 2005

There's nothing wrong with having two jobs, PureX. In fact getting a second job to support yourself or your family is a good thing.

Having the government steal from your neighbors for you instead of getting a second job is a bad thing.

PureX · Feb 19, 2005

Originally posted by Turbo There's nothing wrong with having two jobs, PureX. In fact getting a second job to support yourself or your family is a good thing.

Having the government steal from your neighbors for you instead of getting a second job is a bad thing.

How is working two jobs to support a family good when it means the family will hardly ever see you?

If you don't like paying your taxes, then you should take it up with the government. If you don't like how they spend the taxes they collect, again, you should take it up with them. The artist working from a public grant is simply being paid to perform a service. Same as you or me.

BillyBob · Feb 19, 2005

Originally posted by PureX

Art almost always demands far more time, energy, and resources then any hobby would. And art done as a hobby will look like art done as a hobby - you know - that kind of kitch stuff you see at flea markets. Art is very hard to do the way it demands to be done if you want to do it well .... effectively.

Charles Ives (1874-1954)
The Unanswered Question

The life of American composer, professional organist, and insurance salesman Charles Ives was one of constant contrast. His father not only bestowed a passion for music on his son, but also imparted the advice that freedom to do what he wanted with his music would come from making a living doing something else. Heeding this advice led the young Ives to the insurance business. During his lifetime, Ives' compositions were often not taken very seriously, perhaps due to his "day job," the diversity of his output, and the relatively few performances given during the years of composition. However, by the time of his centenary in 1974, Ives was regarded as a respected musical innovator and one of the first to project a distinctly American musical voice. He explored various innovative techniques such as polytonality, tone-cluster, chords based 4ths, and atonality. His creativity spilled over into his insurance work where he promoted the use of actuarial statistics and ceaselessly sought ways to improve the lot of low income groups. Ives never forgot the people behind the insurance policies. While he ran one of the most successful insurance agencies in the United States, he took only $25,000 a year, eschewed fancy parties, and spent his days off padding around his modest house in his overalls composing music until 2 or 3 a.m.

One of Ives' most performed works, The Unanswered Question (1908, rev. 1930-35), is a study in contrasts. Strings intone slow diatonic, triadic chords; a solo trumpet asks the question seven times; the flutes try to answer the question, each time getting more and more agitated and atonal. True to his pragmatism as a sometime theater orchestra pianist, the composer leaves considerable leeway in orchestration of the piece. One group is an unspecified number of strings, another group is a flute quartet (clarinet and/or oboe may substitute for some of the flutes), and the trumpet part may be played by English horn, oboe, or clarinet. In "Note to Performers," Ives indicates that the groups should operate independently. "The strings play ppp throughout with no change in tempo. They are to represent The Silences of the Druids who Know, See and Hear Nothing.' The trumpet intones The Perennial Question of Existence,' and states it in the same tone of voice each time. But the hunt for The Invisible Answer' undertaken by the flutes and other human beings becomes gradually more active. . . . The Fighting Answerers,' as the time goes on, and after a secret conference,' seem to realize a futility, and begin to mock The Question'the strife is over for the moment. After they disappear, The Question' is asked for the last time, and the Silences' are heard beyond in Undisturbed Solitude.'"

PureX · Feb 19, 2005

Originally posted by Turbo The government stole money from people and gave it to him at his request. And he knowingly accepted stolen money.

No he didn't. You're the only one misrepresenting your taxes as "stolen money". Just because you call it stolen doesn't make it stolen.

Originally posted by Turbo Maybe you can explain to me how it is "good for me" to have my money stolen from me to support this garbage. (Try to keep it under five paragraphs.)

No one stole your money. You gave it to the government in the form of a tax.

Originally posted by Turbo I don't care how small the amount is, I don't want my money being taken from me to support this stuff. If you want to give your money to someone who pees in jars, you are free to do so on your own.

The government doesn't care what you want. It believes that it knows better than you do what should be done with your tax money. And in some cases the government is probably right. If people weren't made to pay taxes, they wouldn't. But then we'd live in anarchy and chaos. We used to live in anarchy and chaos and we discovered that it sucked, so we made laws and established governments and we found that they worked lots better. But many of us are still so selfish that we don't care about any of that. We just want to keep our money and we don't care if society falls into anarchy or not.

BillyBob · Feb 19, 2005

Originally posted by PureX

How is working two jobs to support a family good when it means the family will hardly ever see you?

It's better than letting them starve.

If you don't like paying your taxes, then you should take it up with the government. If you don't like how they spend the taxes they collect, again, you should take it up with them. The artist working from a public grant is simply being paid to perform a service.

There should be NO public grants for art.

Same as you or me.

The government doesn't pay me.

BillyBob · Feb 19, 2005

Originally posted by PureX

No he didn't. You're the only one misrepresenting your taxes as "stolen money". Just because you call it stolen doesn't make it stolen.
No one stole your money. You gave it to the government in the form of a tax.

No, the government forcefully takes it as a tax.

The government doesn't care what you want.

Obviously.

It believes that it knows better than you do what should be done with your tax money.

:darwinsm: Typical liberal.

Lucky · Feb 19, 2005

I was thinking about this today, and I don't know if it's been brought up yet, but... PureX, how could you criticize art (in the form of music) in the grammys thread? After all, if art is neither good or bad and isn't about being fun and entertaining and :blabla:, how can you criticize those musical artists and their masterpieces?

Delmar · Feb 19, 2005

Originally posted by PureX

How is working two jobs to support a family good when it means the family will hardly ever see you?

If you don't like paying your taxes, then you should take it up with the government. If you don't like how they spend the taxes they collect, again, you should take it up with them. The artist working from a public grant is simply being paid to perform a service. Same as you or me.

When the government takes your money for a just function of government it is a tax. When the government takes money from my family to give it to your family so that you can work on art instead of getting a real job it is, in fact, stealing!

BillyBob · Feb 19, 2005

Originally posted by deardelmar

When the government takes your money for a just function of government it is a tax. When the government takes money from my family to give it to your family so that you can work on art instead of getting a real job it is, in fact, stealing!

Man, that sounds like a great gig! I'll stay home and write songs while the taxpayers pay me a few hundred grand a year! :banana:

It's OK, PureX, it will only be costing you a fraction of one penny, how can you possibly object?

BillyBob · Feb 19, 2005

I have an idea for a scale replica of the Eiffel Tower made out of empty cans of Canadian beer. It will only cost the tax payers 4.8 million dollars and should take me about 15 minutes to build.

Delmar · Feb 20, 2005

How are you going to stack 4.8 million dollars worth of empty cans of Canadian beer in 15 minutes?

BillyBob · Feb 20, 2005

Originally posted by deardelmar

How are you going to stack 4.8 million dollars worth of empty cans of Canadian beer in 15 minutes?

4.8 million is my fee. I'm only gonna stack about 30 cans and call it art.

Delmar · Feb 20, 2005

Originally posted by BillyBob

4.8 million is my fee. I'm only gonna stack about 30 cans and call it art.

:thumb:

PureX · Feb 20, 2005

Originally posted by Lucky I was thinking about this today, and I don't know if it's been brought up yet, but... PureX, how could you criticize art (in the form of music) in the grammys thread? After all, if art is neither good or bad and isn't about being fun and entertaining and :blabla:, how can you criticize those musical artists and their masterpieces?

You're confusing art with entertainment.

PureX · Feb 20, 2005

Originally posted by deardelmar When the government takes your money for a just function of government it is a tax. When the government takes money from my family to give it to your family so that you can work on art instead of getting a real job it is, in fact, stealing!

Except that you don't get to make that decision, they do. And they have decided that it's not stealing. If you don't like it you should take it up with the government, and stop blaming the artist. The artist is simply being paid to do his job.

BillyBob · Feb 20, 2005

Originally posted by PureX

Except that you don't get to make that decision, they do. And they have decided that it's not stealing. If you don't like it you should take it up with the government, and stop blaming the artist. The artist is simply being paid to do his job.

So, you are an honest man and a person hires you to do a job. You know that person is a criminal and the money he is going to pay you with was gained unlawfully.

Do you take the job anyway?

Turbo · Feb 20, 2005

Originally posted by PureX

Except that you don't get to make that decision, they [the government] do. And they have decided that it's not stealing.

When a government decides that Jews are not human and that slaughtering them is not murder, does that mean that slaughtering Jews is not murder and is not wrong?

the Sibbie · Feb 20, 2005

Originally posted by PureX

You're confusing art with entertainment.

From post #9:

Originally posted by PureX

What we see isn't always going to be pretty, or fun, or entertaining. But art isn't about being pretty and fun and entertaining, even though it may often be all of those things.

Art is about exploration. Everything else art happens to do is just an aside.

What about stuff we hear? Do you define music as entertainment but not art?

Lucky · Feb 20, 2005

Originally posted by PureX

You're confusing art with entertainment.

Oh okay, I didn't realize music wasn't a form of art.

the Sibbie · Feb 20, 2005

..but peeing in a jar is.

Is It Art?

Caped Crusader

Well-known member

BANNED

Well-known member

BANNED

BANNED

New member

Patron Saint of SMACK

BANNED

BANNED

Patron Saint of SMACK

BANNED

Patron Saint of SMACK

Well-known member

Well-known member

BANNED

Caped Crusader

New member

New member

New member