On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 01:34:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Larry, I completely agree with most of what you wrote about valuable
> > professions not being paid what they're actually worth.
>
> Dan, if I gave the impression that artists should not be paid for their
work,
> that is not what I meant to say. But do artists deserve the payments
that
> they receive
If people are prepared to pay for something the artist have produced or
created, then emphatically - yes.
> while our children are getting inferior education's because we
> will pay Metalash!t millions of dollars a year
We don't, directly. We choose, or choose not to buy their product. As to
what *they* get paid, is it any of our damn business? If we want their
product - then we can expect to pay the price that they are prepared to sell
it for.
> and pay a great teacher $30
> thousand if they are lucky?
I understand your indignance - but people (in gneneral) *choose* to become
teachers. They could equally choose to become lawyers, stockbrokers,
artists, musicians, etc...etc..., assuming they had the requisite
attribbutes and the tenacity and required work ethic.
If you personally feel so outraged, I would imagine you are perfectly within
your rights to employ a private teacher for your offspring, at whatever
inflated salary you think they deserve.
Once again, if somebody like an artist or musician decides to sell their
work, it's their perogative as to how much they charge. We don't have any
"rights" to their work, whether or not we think the price for it is
undeserved or not. If they get rich on the proceeds, whilst other (in some
peoples' opinions) workers in worse paid industries eek an existance - it's
all choice.
> As far as sports go, I have no interest in sports at all and do not think
> that these people deserve to be paid very much for "playing".
Fine - your opinion, and your entitled to it.
I have no problem with them getting as much as they can. In the majority of
cases, they won't have anything like the same bargaining power once they're
in the late thirties and onwards - unless they have other talents, and
manage to be proactive with their career.
> Most athletes do not have to work that hard to accomplish what they do.
What on *earth* do you base this on?
Obviously this can well depend on the sport, but in most cases that I've
experienced, natural talent, aptitude and / or genetic predisposition can be
of paramount importance, but doesn't necessarily mean that there's no effort
involved.
> They
> are simply using God given gifts that come naturally to them. I feel
much
> differently about artists of any kind.
Personally I don't see the distinction - I think it's quite fallacious.
> Like everything else, you have to have the God given skills to be an
artist.
> But being an artist, is much harder.
On what grounds? With what metric? I think you are making some gross
generalisations here.
> Requires much more effort, time and
> work to accomplish what they did.
As somebody who's always been involved in physical activity, I find this
sort of thing is quite insulting. How you can try and make out that artistic
endeavours require more effort than physical / sporting pursuits, seems
inexcusably ignorant.
> My nephew was a video major. One day we were talking about something and
> somehow he mentioned how he felt that "Shidler's List" was the best movie
he
> ever saw. I'm don't know it is # one, but it would be hard to argue that
it
> was brilliant. Not just Spielberg, but Neeson and many other people.
>
> You don't get results like that without, in addition to the talents God
gave
> you, really feeling and working at what you are doing.
And do you think the worlds best sprinters get where they are by simple use
of their talents, and no hard work? World class soccer players? Weight
lifters? Snooker players? Cyclists?
You are demeaning entire communities who are involved in "playing" sports,
or competing to suggest it doesn't require the same degree of work as those
that choose artistic pursuits.
> Can we really call the Spice girls "Artists"??? I won't waste an MD on
> them. Maybe if they wanted to some of their other talents.........never
> mind.
Performers is what I'd class them. And I don't resent them a thing. If
people are prepared to pay they price that the spicies market their wares
as, then all strength to them. They won't be able to get away with the same
sort of thing when they're in their forties.
> One last thing. I chose the term "God Given", as a generic term. I'm
not
> a some kind of religious fanatic that goes around mentioning God in every
> sentence. Perhaps nature's given gifts.
Many athletes and sports people do have talents, and aptitudes, but I can't
think of many that don't have to work damned hard to achieve what they do.
To suggest that art requires a greater degree of effort and work ethic, to
me suggests that this is simply an argument from somebody that suits their
opinion, disposition and likes.
Neil
_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
