I agree Facil - though some definition of artist is required. What is this 'art' not part of 1000 channels with nothing on except the simulacrum of drivel, generally funded by advertising? I might point to Maxwell (perhaps both the great scientist and my dog) and Einstein. I've long wondered about art and people-community development - I'm floored by people using dance to work with disabled kids (as an example). Brian Bevan (rugby leaugue's record try scorer) was a work of art in action. Gabby might be see as such in another form of side-step. Not all art brings much reward. Allan and Andrew have a go, sometimes not at each other. Molly has often touched me deeply, even if so much of my experience has been 'dark side'. The chocolate box picture isn't art unless a child is smiling.
Art may have some function in revealing such as 'change is the same thing' and the depravity of political words, the 'lie that tells us the truth' sort of stuff - but does the 'pipe' have to be painted by Magritte? One confronts this picture doing systems analysis - modelling the reality is not modelling the rhetoric. On Thursday, 18 September 2014 00:31:17 UTC+1, facilitator wrote: > > I don't think artists do, otherwise the term "starving artist" would be > applied less frequently. > > On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:54:57 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> Ms Tidulz says she has no gold and just looks at her claws when I suggest >> she should be replaced with a golden goose. Perhaps one needs a heretic >> cat? Do artists have some knack in spotting the drivel we 'all' want? >> >> >>>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
