Funny, I see it as the opposite. Proportionally, more humans now are actively involved in the arts (emotional expression) than ever before. More people write blogs (maybe not great art, but expressive nonetheless!) More people make their own movies, photos, music, performance art, and share their work~play with their friends and family. And more people have jobs that involve creative endeavors.
Art may not be as "special" or even as high quality as it used to be considered, but I think that's because it's becoming more of a normal, everyday activity.
I think that's a major misconception about art, that it's supposed to be a "special" thing, i.e., exceptional. Like you said, art is merely a form of expression, a way for an individual to create an object that conveys what s/he considers to be important about the world.
I agree with you, I see the humanities are more integral to modern man's life today than ever before.
Well, if necessity is the mother of invention. Why can't necessity likewise be the mother of humanities?
If such is the case, then humanities will never be lost. Tahe necessity for creating them will remain regardless of whether or not the humanities of tomorrow are the same as today. If such is the case, it is possible what is viewed by some as being a loss of humanities, instead implies a paradigm shift of which humanities people subscribe to.
And so, while some may trade Socrates for the words of Tupac Shakur or the artwork of Michaelangelo for the work of comic book artist Todd Macfarlene, I think this does not necessarily represent a loss of need for humanities nor a loss of humanities themselves. Art doesn't appear or disappear. It merely changes forms.
Blech. Something like that.
As for society, I'll wager concepts and ideas change resulting in changes of what art is and what it can be. This does not necessarily imply evolution nor de-evolution so much as it does change. And, no I'm not talking about Obama, neither.
Humanity is constentaly changing and adapting, so I think we're on the right track. If you look at two generations by them selves, they look completaly different, but if you see 30 or so generations laied out, I think it apears that we're following a path of some sort. I think, but I'm not sure we can really understand this.
Why can't we understand it? Historians already speak in terms of historical imperative, Star Trek had a character named Q who spoke volumes on the nature of time and developement. A lot of people, when asked, "If you could change one thing from your life, would you?" most of the people that I asked answered, "No" there logic being that what they have gone through has made them into the person they are today. I don't think that we can't understand our own past enough to see where we are headed. Indeed I think that we already understand our past well enough to change our future into whatever we want it to be.
Us as a human race, or us as single people? There is a very big difference there, and I think that has the most effect on where our race is going. Us as a race is lead by the smartest, brightest and the richest.
If asked that question, I would (and have) answered the same, what I have gone through has made me who I am, but also with the influnce of my preset nature and character. But as I have said, us as a plural or noun? I get what you're saying tho, I think. The way a single human acts can be used to see how the human race acts, and we can see where we are going through that method. However, humans have a bit of unpredictblilty, organized chaos?
(Q, I've never really liked him much. I perfer Data's theorys)
A comment on all three responses 1catalyst123May 24 2009, 22:18:49 UTC
The new Batman series portrays Bruce Wayne as a complex and challenging person. A rich boy enters the criminal underground. He's not really a criminal, but observes the criminal. He is taught how to fight evil and how to become a symbol. As a symbol he is able to do the things that ordinary individuals cannot. If innocents die because Batman wont reveal himself, Batman doesn't need to reveal himself. When the district attorney steps forward as Batman, it shows that the one who should come forward and receive punishment isn't our protector, the one that guards us, it is the one who is murdering innocent people
( ... )
Comments 12
Reply
Art may not be as "special" or even as high quality as it used to be considered, but I think that's because it's becoming more of a normal, everyday activity.
Reply
I agree with you, I see the humanities are more integral to modern man's life today than ever before.
Reply
If such is the case, then humanities will never be lost. Tahe necessity for creating them will remain regardless of whether or not the humanities of tomorrow are the same as today. If such is the case, it is possible what is viewed by some as being a loss of humanities, instead implies a paradigm shift of which humanities people subscribe to.
And so, while some may trade Socrates for the words of Tupac Shakur or the artwork of Michaelangelo for the work of comic book artist Todd Macfarlene, I think this does not necessarily represent a loss of need for humanities nor a loss of humanities themselves. Art doesn't appear or disappear. It merely changes forms.
Blech. Something like that.
As for society, I'll wager concepts and ideas change resulting in changes of what art is and what it can be. This does not necessarily imply evolution nor de-evolution so much as it does change. And, no I'm not talking about Obama, neither.
Reply
I think, but I'm not sure we can really understand this.
Reply
"If you could change one thing from your life, would you?"
most of the people that I asked answered,
"No"
there logic being that what they have gone through has made them into the person they are today.
I don't think that we can't understand our own past enough to see where we are headed. Indeed I think that we already understand our past well enough to change our future into whatever we want it to be.
Reply
If asked that question, I would (and have) answered the same, what I have gone through has made me who I am, but also with the influnce of my preset nature and character. But as I have said, us as a plural or noun? I get what you're saying tho, I think. The way a single human acts can be used to see how the human race acts, and we can see where we are going through that method.
However, humans have a bit of unpredictblilty, organized chaos?
(Q, I've never really liked him much. I perfer Data's theorys)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment