Text 14800, 80 rader
Skriven 2007-05-21 18:52:31 av Carl (1213.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
lizardgirl wrote:
> On May 16, 2:12 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16 May 2007 08:56:17 -0700, lizardgirl <gab...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 15, 6:47 pm, "Carl" <cengm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The factors by which one judges art are (as Amy and others have
>>>> pointed out) not completely subjective, and I don't consider
>>>> myself qualified to judge art other than as it conforms to my
>>>> personal taste.
>>
>>> sure, there are formal elements (color, composition, balance, line,
>>> form, etc) by which you can 'evaluate' individual works.  and these
>>> can be helpful in understanding the significance of a specific
>>> piece, as well as bodies of work by an artist or group of artists.
>>> doesn't take more then one semester of art appreciation to get the
>>> basics down (should you be so inclined.)
>>
>>> the notion that art needs to conforms to anything other then an
>>> individuals taste makes no sense to me.  does one need to understand
>>> wine making in order to enjoy a glass of wine? does knowing the
>>> process make it taste any better?  you may now understand why it
>>> tastes the way it taste, but does that alone make you want to drink
>>> it?  if it don't taste good to you, it don't taste good to you.
>>
>> It seems to me that there's a different kind of learning involved.
>> Someone discovered some years ago that when trained musicians listen
>> to music, they rely mostly on the left hemisphere, whereas untrained
>> listeners rely on the right one. The musicians are presumably
>> thinking notes and staffs and time signatures, while the listeners
>> are thinking the sounds without the symbolic representation and
>> theory. But they're still analyzing the same material, and that
>> appears to be an acquired skill -- to mention some extreme examples,
>> people can't even tell whether a note is higher than another if they
>> haven't been exposed to a given musical tradition, and I remember
>> reading about a tribe somewhere that wasn't able to understand
>> drawings with perspective, because their own art was two-dimensional
>> -- they'd never developed or been exposed to it.
>>
>> I know that my own appreciation of art has improved over the years,
>> as I've listened, watched, and read, and I know that others have had
>> the same experience. And what's curious is that as this happens,
>> people tend to discover and enjoy the /same/ works. Not always, but
>> at a much higher than average frequency. It could be the Beatles, or
>> it could be Picasso, or Shakespeare -- way more often than chance or
>> the random elements of taste would suggest, people end up
>> considering them extraordinary.
>
>
> right.  which is why federal/state funding of the arts is a good
> thing.  it exposes people to different ways of expressing/experiencing
> the world we live in, the things we believe.

Why not state funding?  Why does it have to be federal funding?


Carl

"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and 
business
is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrence to private
initiative which are imposed by our present tax system, and this 
administration
pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in
personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 
1963."
-- President John F. Kennedy


"Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift
that problem to the hands of the government, to the same extent we are 
sacrificing
the liberties of our people." -
-- President John F. Kennedy
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)