opalkoboi wrote:if it was a scientist about to cure cancer, surely people could argue that maybe being a nice guy and all that is more important than a cure for cancer as whether we are happy influences our everyday lives, yet cancer doesn't. And the treatments now are very good, and many won't ever be affected by dangerous cancer, and the period in your life in which you have cancer is very small compared to the time you don't.
Also I do see Hyun's logic, and it's a good valid point.
opalkoboi wrote:I was only saying someone could argue along those lines, I wasn't arguing it...i was making the point that people can argue the humanity vs history/culture. or, if you prefer, the idea that the people inderividually don't matter but what we accomplish does.
opalkoboi wrote:First, Cezen, you are comparing art to Hitler. When you compare them you say they both weren't good or important. Actually, Hitler was very important. It's a big part of history, and changed a lot in the world. Just because it wasn't, in what I believe to be almost everyone's opinion, good doesn't mean it wasn't important.
You also say he, or his art, has no way of improving society. "Art is art." Yet previously you say about Einstein's achievements for technology and how we wouldn't have what we do today without him. Therefore I can reason you put science above art. You also think technological advances matter to society, but art doesn't. yet as we have heard before this art is so magnificent that it "will make pretentious people feel better for the minute or so they spend pondering his art work". Yet technology can have many bad influences on people. If you want an example, I can give a specific one if you want to be picky later, think of people who become violent due to violent games and films. Sometimes to extremes. Also people can get electrocuted ect.
As a non-art lover yourself (understatement I know) it's obvious you you'd think people would take one glance and say 'impressive' and move on. Many anti-art people would. But as we already mentioned, it is stunning art that can make practically everyone connect with it and make them feel better ect.
And again, you are now comparing art to a near death experience. Saying that like a near death experience, it isn't 'intrinsically good/positive'.
You also say, "we've evolved to the point that we can fill our lives with intrinsically unimportant things". Didn't you say earlier that people can be inspired by video games and modelling? Aren't they pointless too? You say other things are important but art isn't, so yes, you are being narrow-minded. Art is important and means a lot to many people, and in this case of the jerk artist maybe his paintings could even mean something to someone like you.
Of course, when it comes to me although I can see the reasoning behind saving the artist fully, I'd still save the nice guy. Why? Because as I've said many times, we're all very simple and we just want to be happy and we are made happy very easily. Also, one thing I care about as much as you do about art Cezen, is the future. We should just be happy now and f**k the future, who cares what we have accomplished as a race? Happiness is a big enough accomplishment for all of us.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests