Quote:
Originally Posted by Salvanas
Perhaps I didn't explain myself fully, or people didn't read the line: "Note: Artists as in photographers, and painting. There are some arts, like literacy, which is needed in life."
I am fully aware that the word art means much more. I mean, I'm aiming to be a historian. What good of a historian would I be if I denounce ALL art as useless
As I stated again in another post, is that artists ARE needed. But not at the huge amounts it's attracting these days.
I'd rather have 50 less artists, and 3 more fully qualified doctors.
|
Imagine picking up a newspaper or magazine that was devoid of photographs.
How much money would have been made in donations to Haiti without the pictures sent to our newspapers and TVs?
And I read your clarification, and I still think my post has merit. You can pick and choose which artists are worthy of existence and which are not, but you can't pretend there is no interconnectivity between creative thought and human advancement.
Even if you think someone's existence has no social worth, I am glad you weren't the one to give Da Vinci the heave-ho so another barber/bloodletter could have a job.
You may not see the worth in a said artist's or photographer's work, but if it inspires someone in a way that makes the world a better place, then who are you to say their existence is meaningless?