Originally posted by Saint Nick
I'm too blue collar to see artist, filmaker, actor, etc as
'real' jobs. While lucrative, I fail to see how they are a benefit to anyone.
I'd like to discuss this topic, because I think that this perspective is prevalent amongst many people.
First, I think we need to define what a
'real' job is; Saint Nick seems to suggest that a
'real' job is one which is benefit to someone other than the person doing the job. If this is inaccurate, then this needs to be clarified.
Next, I'll refer you all to a website wherein a Music Education group cites various different studies which support that music education is beneficial in a variety of regions. No doubt, one could cite other sites which refer to the benefits of other arts, but music is one which I know best.
http://www.menc.org/information/advocate/facts.html
Given the diverse sources of information in the bibliography (from publications representing natural science, social science, and humanities), I would argue that those who maintain that arts are not beneficial to the public good have the burden of proof to demonstrate how some (or all) of the statements made on this web page are false or at least spurious.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioBefore I continue this thread you will have to get your "R" fixed. It is eally bothering me.
First, I think we need to define what a eal job is; Saint Nick seems to suggest that a eal job is one which is benefit to someone other than the person doing the job. If this is inaccurate, then this needs to be clarified..
I'd like ...[text shortened]... s made on this web page are false or at least spurious.
Nemesio[/b]
Mike
Originally posted by nemesioWhat can I say?
Originally posted by Saint Nick
[b]I'm too blue collar to see artist, filmaker, actor, etc as
'real' jobs. While lucrative, I fail to see how they are a benefit to anyone.
I'd like to discuss this topic, because I think that this perspective is prevalent amongst many people.
First, I think we need to define what a
'real' job is; S ...[text shortened]... some (or all) of the statements made on this web page are false or at least spurious.
Nemesio[/b]
"Everything of value is vulnerable." comes to mind.
I fail to see how an employee at McDonald's job can be more real than mine or how a bank director's job can be more real than a chimney sweep's.
I reckon 'how important' a job is, comes down to how you personally value it.
I couldn't care less about a bank director or a manager at Fords. I find what the workers do on the work floor much more valuable.
I like watching films. I like listening to music. These are things I value very highly and therefor I find them important.
Maybe if you don't value your own job as you value art, you are in the wrong business?
Maybe if you don't value art you just serve to make it more vulnerable.
And everything that is vulnerable becomes valuable. Which only really makes it more vulnerable.
Originally posted by rapalla7well-are "golden" squares not more athetically pleasing that -erm- non-golden ones? so thats kinda nature, kinda maths shizzle...
Every thing around us is art. Except of cours what is nature.
Everything is made to be asthetically pleasing. Except of course Buffalo New York.
Mike
Originally posted by geniusSounds like kinda gibberish to me 😉
well-are "golden" squares not more athetically pleasing that -erm- non-golden ones? so thats kinda nature, kinda maths shizzle...
A golden square?!! Is there such a thing? Or are you committing crimes against polygons?
I think you guys might be getting away from the point here.... Are the Arts beneficial? I think it would be terribly short sighted to discount their worth... as someone who had a 'real' job (I.T. manager) and ditched my career, returning to college to persue a career in theatre I think I can bring some perspective to the matter... Art/Theatre/Film etc. has always been a medium for expression and social change and is vital to the public at large... im not saying that society would not collapse without blue/white collar workers but if we did not have artists (in whatever their form) to question the status quo and lead others to do so as well we would be living in an orwellian nightmare and as more arts budgets are cut and more arts/humanities course scrapped in colleges/schools we are heading in that direction (but thats for another discussion...) So what im trying to say is that an artists work is not purely for himself or for any individual but for society as a whole and therfore is of imessurable worth...
Originally posted by T1000goldren rectangle-sorry 😛
Sounds like kinda gibberish to me 😉
A golden square?!! Is there such a thing? Or are you committing crimes against polygons?
i think this is a good enough definition of the mathematic properties-http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldenRectangle.html
can't find anything on their "athetic" values-but i know the greeks used them a lot. look them up if you want to know them-i'm going through a lazy bugger stage 🙂
EDIT: http://www.mathsoft.com/mathresources/constants/wellknown/article/0,,1941,00.html
Nice thread....
I think the focus would have to be on what is 'real'.
I had to think about my first post for a little bit.
I consider a real job to be one that has a positive influence on the economy, industry, scientific advancement, medicine or sustaining society.
The arts benefit culture and asthetics, but I think they are not something that will change economy, have vast influence of people's way of life, effect politics etc.
I might be over simplifying here but I kind of think of it like this:
Auto workers go on strike = bad
Railraod workers go on strike = bad
Lack of doctors at a hospital = bad
US banking system crashes = bad
Actors guild goes on strike = Hmmm, wouldn't concern me much
Local artists colony breaks up = would anyone care.
Yes, I know that is a simplistic way of putting, but I think you can see my point. Besides, that's how us bluecollar types are. 😀
Originally posted by Saint Nick
I consider a real job to be one that has a positive influence on the economy, industry, scientific advancement, medicine or sustaining society.
Did you read the site I posted? There have been studies in scientific and medical journals which agree that musical ability enhances many of these very fields. Musical ability can only be conferred and developed by professional musicians.
Let me ask you this? Do you think that going to Mars and discerning whether or not it had water thousands of years ago has a positive influence on economy, industry, medicine or sustaining society? Do such scientists have 'real' jobs?
Originally posted by Saint Nick
The arts benefit culture and asthetics, but I think they are not something that will change economy, have vast influence of people's way of life, effect politics etc.
Are you suggesting that Huck Finn or Tale of Two Cities had no influence on a person's way of life? You don't think Michael Moore's film had an effect on politics? You don't think Luther's hymns didn't help effect religious revolution, or Sousa's patriotic music?
The arts may not have as patently obvious an effect at all times, but to maintain the argument that they don't have vast influence is unsustainable! Consider this:
Commodities that are arts related, such as films, books, records, television programs, clothing, furniture, and computer programs, are all major players in international markets, and have become a positive component in our balance of payment problem. In summary, the arts represent a very important part of the economy. They account for between 5 and 10 percent of Gross National Product. Related industries such as electronic imaging and advertising are major support industries for many of our corporations.
The Arts as Commodity, Stanley S. Madeja
http://aad.uoregon.edu/culturework/culturework6.html
Let me ask you this, what would have a more obvious effect on America, if 1000 auto workers go on strike in Detroit or if the actors on Friends had gone on strike during their last season?
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioHmmm.. I have no doubt that music enriches lives, makes people happier with their life, more productive, etc. But, I don't necessarily agree that this has to be confered by professional musicians. Why can't hobbyists teach each other to play an instrument? My mother taught me to play the piano. I'm not great, but I can play well enough to enjoy it and improve on my own. Did Beethoven have a professional teacher?
Originally posted by Saint Nick
[b]I consider a real job to be one that has a positive influence on the economy, industry, scientific advancement, medicine or sustaining society.
Did you read the site I posted? There have been studies in scientific and medical journals which agree that musical ability enhances many of these very fields. Musi ...[text shortened]... e in Detroit or if the actors on Friends had gone on strike during their last season?
Nemesio[/b]
Next, I do think scientists are real jobs. No doubt about the impact of scientific discovery.
Now we get to authors. I have to concede that individuals have expressed themselves through the literary arts in a manner that has greatly influenced society and politics. In fact, I think there are many even better examples that could have proven your point evem better. I don't see any huge impact Anne Rice or Stephen King have had. I think we would have to debate individual types of authors.
Filmakers- Again, I concede. Moore had a vast influence on society and politics. Therefore, by my own definition, has a real job. I now have to go and scrub my hands and keyboard with clorine for having typed that. I have to agree that documentary filmmakers are educators that provide an important resource. Entertainment fimmakers....I still can't see the huge impact that Alien Vs. Predator had.
No doubt that the Arts can make money. I pay money ito see movies regularly. But, if there was no movies to see, then I would just find something else to do and it would have very little effect on my way of life. The info on the arts economic impact was very interesting. Think you have a very good point there, but I'll consider it more before I concede.
Lastly, If the UAW went on strike for 120 days and the cast of 'Friends' on strike for 120 days? Surely you jest. I think that you might be underestimating the far reaching economic impact of of a UAW strike. The Friends cast on strike would simply be a topic of discussion for a few weeks. Give us something to talk about on our lunch breaks. A UAW strike in Detroit... Consumer spending comes to a stand still..local service industry businesses go under and lay off their workers...sub-contracted companies n longer have a demand for their product and lay off workers...Thousands can no longer pay rent to where landlords can no longer pay morgages...the city goverment can't fund a budget due to the loss income and sales tax....
There is a reason the President has stepped into major industry strikes and not actor contract negotiations.
I think you made some great points in your post and I have tried to make mine. I think we could debate individual positions for a very long time and many of tem are 'gray' area. For example, archatect (I know it's spelled wrong). Both engineer and artist. I wouls say is a real job, but is no doubt an artist. (Bet you wish you had thought of that, huh?).
So, here's a question for you: Is a professional athelete a 'real' job?
Originally posted by Saint NickI will address some of your points tomorrow, but I will say this:
I pay money ito see movies regularly. But, if there was no movies to see, then I would just find something else to do and it would have very little effect on my way of life.
If you didn't go to the movies, what would you do? Read a book? Wait, that's the arts. Watch TV? Wait, that's the arts too. Listen to a CD? Wait, that's the arts, too. Go to a club and dance? Wait, the arts. Go to a concert? Arts. Theater? Arts.
You could read a scientific journal, but it couldn't have photographs or illustrations, because that's art, too!
If we took all art out of your life, it would very likely have more than 'very little effect' on your way of life.
You are surrounded by the work of artists! Many of the things you do and enjoy are the byproduct of artists' work.
I will address some of your other points, later.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Saint NickYou are comparing one author against how many other people? The entirety of the auto union? Is that fair? Sure, Stephen King had less influence than the entire UAW.
I don't see any huge impact Anne Rice or Stephen King have had.
But did the entirety of writers have less influence than the entire UAW is the question? Or, did Stephen King (or any writer) have less influence than any representatve member of the UAW?
I answer, no. The members of the writers union and those of the UAW had profound influences on the world around them, and have 'real' jobs.
