Why do people not think aesthetics are important?

[Nein01]

We make money to live, not to survive. Everyone has different wants to satisfy.

try telling that to all the working class people who support the world's largest corporations for minimum wage, or less--so that they can buy food and pay rent.

You are delusional if you think we don't have to make money to survive. And I think it's your privilege that allows you to use the verb "to live" like it doesn't mean anything besides having fun and "satisfying your wants".

 

[drjsway]

You are delusional if you think we don't have to make money to survive.

Aren't you the same person who said that artists who make money are sell outs?

As far as the rest of your post, completely irrelevant and off topic.

There are people starving around the world, how dare he enjoy his life!

 

[Nein01]

Aren't you the same person who said that artists who make money are sell outs?

nope. i said a sell-out artist is one who will make work only for the money. i also said that real art has no monetary value.

nice try twisting my words around though.

You guys just gave me hope for Humanity

Man, do you have it completely backwards. Have fun living in a world where everything is ugly, there is no imagination nor creavity, and everything is built just to be functional.

OP, how convenient it must be to have the ability to block out and ignore all the world's problems while you live in luxury,

"Desire is half of life; indifference is half of death."

keep that in mind. some people care.

 

[Gabriel GR]

try telling that to all the working class people who support the world's largest corporations for minimum wage, or less--so that they can buy food and pay rent.

You are delusional if you think we don't have to make money to survive. And I think it's your priviledge that allows you to use the verb "to live" like it doesn't mean anything besides having fun and "satisfying your wants".

I feel sorry for them. But I can't do anything else. To avoid being in their position I spent 12 years in public school, 4 in a public university, 2 as a postgraduate student, and although I was born and raised in Greece I speak and write fluent English and French. Also I am 24, I have 4 years of experience in my field and have been working for 8 years total.

If after all this effort I still had to work for the minimum wage in some corporation, I'd rather go to some place without tv, internet and all amenities and grow chicken and fruit to eat.

Life without satisfaction is survival. Big cities are not for everyone.

 

[calderone]

nope. i said a sell-out artist is one who will make work only for the money. i also said that real art has no monetary value.

nice try twisting my words around though.

You're making atheists look bad. Please stop.

 

[drjsway]

nope. i said a sell-out artist is one who will make work only for the money. i also said that real art has no monetary value.

Which is BS too. Anything that doesn't have monetary value doesn't have value period.

I understand you're still in school but you have a very naive view of the art world. EVERY artist strives to make money through their art.

 

[Nein01]

Which is BS too. Anything that doesn't have monetary value doesn't have value period.

whoooooa... maybe you need to go back to school. read a book? something..

 

[Arran]

...If after all this effort I still had to work for the minimum wage in some corporation, I'd rather go to some place without tv, internet and all amenities and grow chicken and fruit to eat....

Bravo. Couldn't agree more.

Of course we all work to pay our bills, but the trick is to find something that doesn't seem like work.

 

[drjsway]

whoooooa... maybe you need to go back to school. read a book? something..

Anything that has meaning, people will assign it a monetary value. If I create something amazing, something you consider "real art", people will want to buy it, therefore giving it monetary value. It's not hard to understand.

I think you need to get out of school and gain some real world experience.

 

[Hopsdaballa04]

Anything that has meaning, people will assign it a monetary value. If I create something amazing, something you consider "real art", people will want to buy it, therefore giving it monetary value. It's not hard to understand.

I think you need to get out of school and gain some real world experience.

Some pieces of art do not have a monetary value; an example would be Leonardo da Vinci’s, Mona Lisa. This piece of art will never be sold it is priceless.

It seems as if you want to argue for the sake of arguing. I did like your first post until you decided to belittle other people’s beliefs. To have an effective debate you need to stay to your facts and not degrade your argument by personally attacking the other individuals that are debating you.

 

[drjsway]

Some pieces of art do not have a monetary value; an example would be Leonardo da Vinci’s, Mona Lisa. This piece of art will never be sold it is priceless.

The Mona Lisa has monetary value because there are people who want to buy it. Just because they choose not to sell it doesn't mean it has no monetary value.

Also you didn't say "some pieces", you said "real art", as if everything else is "fake art". By your definition, if I create a painting and nobody in the world cares, it would be real art.

It seems as if you want to argue for the sake of arguing. I did like your first post until you decided to belittle other people’s beliefs. To have an effective debate you need to stay to your facts and not degrade your argument by personally attacking the other individuals that are debating you.

Nobody is getting paid here. Everybody on a forum is arguing for the sake of arguing, though I prefer to call it debating. And how did I belittle your beliefs? By disagreeing with you?

Your very narrow definition of art is insulting to people who consider themselves artists. Anybody in a creative field is an artist. An architect is an artist. Someone who composes commercial jingles is an artist.

Unfortunately, this attitude is common among US art school grads. Art school professors are usually bitter failed artists who likes to call any successful artist a sell out.

 

[splitpea]

Anything that doesn't have monetary value doesn't have value period.

Wow, man. Your net worth might be 1000 times mine, but I really feel sorry for you.

 

[Hopsdaballa04]

The Mona Lisa has monetary value because there are people who want to buy it. Just because they choose not to sell it doesn't mean it has no monetary value.

Also you didn't say "some pieces", you said "real art", as if everything else is "fake art". By your definition, if I create a painting and nobody in the world cares, it would be real art.



Nobody is getting paid here. Everybody on a forum is arguing for the sake of arguing, though I prefer to call it debating. And how did I belittle your beliefs? By disagreeing with you?

Your very narrow definition of art is insulting to people who consider themselves artists. Anybody in a creative field is an artist. An architect is an artist. Someone who composes commercial jingles is an artist.

Unfortunately, this attitude is common among US art school grads. Art school professors are usually bitter failed artists who likes to call any successful artist a sell out.

I actually don't have an opinion on this matter. My post was strictly to show you that there are some pieces of art that do not have a monetary value. It was also to point out that attacking a person on a personal level, by telling them that they need some real world experience degrades your argument.

I did not define what my view of art is. So please do not try to twist my words around. There is no way to define art. Art is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the whole world is art, from how trees grow, to the shape of certain rocks. Even calligraphy is an art form. So yes you are right there are a lot of forms of art.

 

[drjsway]

Wow, man. Your net worth might be 1000 times mine, but I really feel sorry for you.

I'm talking about art.

 

[dukebound85]

Which is BS too. Anything that doesn't have monetary value doesn't have value period.

Wrong. Plain and simply wrong

I understand you're still in school but you have a very naive view of the art world. EVERY artist strives to make money through their art.

What does school have to do with anything?

I play music.....but have NO desire to make money through it. Same with my writing

I am sure it applies to art as well

In fact, I will argue a true artist does NOT care about making money from their work or to become known for it

I will also argue if one was really concerned about money, they wouldn't have chosen art as a primary profession

 

[drjsway]

I actually don't have an opinion on this matter. My post was strictly to show you that there are some pieces of art that do not have a monetary value. It was also to point out that attacking a person on a personal level, by telling them that they need some real world experience degrades your argument.

I did not define what my view of art is. So please do not try to twist my words around. There is no way to define art. Art is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the whole world is art, from how trees grow, to the shape of certain rocks. Even calligraphy is an art form. So yes you are right there are a lot of forms of art.

Yes, I confused you and atheistpally in the previous post. Me telling him to "get some real world experience" was a response to him telling me to "go back to school".

 

[drjsway]

Wrong. Plain and simply wrong

You don't agree that if your work has value, there will be people who want to buy it, giving it monetary value?

What does school have to do with anything?

I play music.....but have NO desire to make money through it. Same with my writing

I am sure it applies to art as well

In fact, I will argue a true artist does NOT care about making money from their work or to become known for it

But you don't play music or write professionally. If you're a full-time artist, how do you expect to eat if you don't make money?

 

[dukebound85]

You don't agree that if your work has value, there will be people who want to buy it, giving it monetary value?

That is not what you stated. You stated that if there is no monetary value, there is no value. Why do you assign value only in monetary means?

Do not most artists do work with money not as an end goal? At least the true ones? Money is not their motivator

But you don't play music or write professionally. If you're a full-time artist, how do you expect to eat if you don't make money?

Simple, by not being a full time artist and instead let that be your hobby if money is all you are worried about.

 

[drjsway]

That is not what you stated. You stated that if there is no monetary value, there is no value. Why do you assign value only in monetary means?

If there is no monetary value, that means no one wants to buy it. If you create something of value, wouldn't someone want to buy it (whether you choose to sell it or not)? If so, then if there is no monetary value, there is no value. Make sense?

Do not most artists do work with money not as an end goal? At least the true ones? Money is not their motivator

Simple, by not being a full time artist and instead let that be your hobby if money is all you are worried about.

I think most artists would prefer to be able to do it full time, and while money is not the ultimate goal, they want to at least make a living from it.

I do not think you can produce your best work unless you commit to it full time. I also think a lot of artists want some sort of recognition or validation for their hard work and that doesn't make them sell outs. Don't you agree that all artists want their work seen by as many people as possible? Particularly if they have a message or some sort of social commentary to get across.

 

[Hopsdaballa04]

I believe what he is saying is that some things are valuable and do not have a monetary value. I would give an example of a relationship that a father and son have. Both the father and son value that relationship, while that relationship does not have any monetary value. Another example could be a flower pot that your mother gave you and how it is valuable to you but not to anyone else.
Sorry if that wasn’t the way you were going with that dukebound85.

 

[lucifiel]

Art does not require a price to be imbued with 'value'.

It largely turns on how you define 'value'. If you want to describe it as "is it going to be worth something sometime" then ok, your argument stands since the whole notion of "worth" is tied up with the notion of "money" and monetary value.

Take something like Shakespeare's work, it has long been taken out of copyright, so there's no monetary value that anyone can claim over it (no one has to pay anything to use it or enjoy it), are you implying that it has no 'value' because it has no monetary value?

 

[drjsway]

I believe what he is saying is that some things are valuable and do not have a monetary value. I would give an example of a relationship that a father and son have. Both the father and son value that relationship, while that relationship does not have any monetary value. Another example could be a flower pot that your mother gave you and how it is valuable to you but not to anyone else.
Sorry if that wasn’t the way you were going with that dukebound85.

Okay, that makes sense. I guess I should've clarified but when I said "anything", I was only talking about art.

 

[dukebound85]

If there is no monetary value, that means no one wants to buy it. If you create something of value, wouldn't someone want to buy it (whether you choose to sell it or not)? If so, then if there is no monetary value, there is no value. Make sense?

My point is lost on you

I think most artists would prefer to be able to do it full time, and while money is not the ultimate goal, they want to at least make a living from it.

Since when was "culture" a profession for the sake of culture?

Art, music, writing did not start off as professions, but instead ways to communicate life as they see it. As such, "commercializing" art as a sole means of income seems very hypocritical and against everything what art and other culture tools mean imo

I do not think you can produce your best work unless you commit to it full time. I also think a lot of artists want some sort of recognition or validation for their hard work and that doesn't make them sell outs. Don't you agree that all artists want their work seen by as many people as possible? Particularly if they have a message or some sort of social commentary to get across.

I disagree with everything here

You do not need to do something full time to achieve excellence

There are countless artists who had no desire for fame or money with their works. Dickinson comes to mind

However, that does not mean they do not want their message portrayed. Just that they do not desire the fame in doing so as for many, it is the message that is important...not the financial benefits if any

Culture professions have NEVER been driven by money imo. They also have never been the product of a sole profession imo as its what society puts out by many individuals expressing the world as they see it

 

[drjsway]

Art does not require a price to be imbued with 'value'.

It largely turns on how you define 'value'. If you want to describe it as "is it going to be worth something sometime" then ok, your argument stands since the whole notion of "worth" is tied up with the notion of "money" and monetary value.

Take something like Shakespeare's work, it has long been taken out of copyright, so there's no monetary value that anyone can claim over it (no one has to pay anything to use it or enjoy it), are you implying that it has no 'value' because it has no monetary value?

True, I did not consider that. In general though, anything that has value, someone will pay for. That is what I meant.

 

[Arran]

...Another example could be a flower pot that your mother gave you and how it is valuable to you but not to anyone else...

I was thinking along similar lines myself until I hit this....

What if someone kidnaps your flowerpot and sends a ransom demand for $10 (yes, I know it's daft, but stick with me here.)

Would you pay it? Especially if it's from your late mother and it meant a great deal to her - and therefore you?

Personally, I would. And that act would attach a crass monetary value (dammit!) to my 'priceless' object. I guess it's all about finding the right market?