Quote:
Originally Posted by Salvanas
Again. Creative thought =/= art. It never has, and it never will.
Seriously, READ MY POSTS. You're obviously not reading them MMM, or ignoring them to make points which I agree with, and using them as arguments against me.
Yes, we need artists TO A POINT.
But we do not require a vast amount of them, as we have today.
|
I was about to say the same thing to you, as I addressed exactly what you are saying, even if it wasn't exactly the way you wanted me to.
I don't live in your world, but I am not sure how you can come up with the conclusion that we have "too many artists". That implies that if they weren't artists they would be something that would be more "useful" or "beneficial".
I don't think we can look at this like a zookeeper saying "We have too many giraffes, and we need more tigers." Having too many giraffes has nothing to do with the number of tigers.
You said "we need artists TO A POINT" and I am wondering what that point is. How do you decide that the point has been passed? It feels like your are under the assumption that each artist's work is as important or as valuable as the next one's. I think it would take 10,000 artists to repeat the value given to society by an artist like Da Vinci, but what if he didn't "make your cut"? What loss would society have suffered?