(no subject)
Apr. 25th, 2007 08:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Politics
From an article on CBC where Margaret Atwood lashs out at the Conservatives for trying to kill the anadian arts scene:
Atwood focused her article on the economic benefits of the arts in Canada. It's sad art is reduced to defend itself on such a level. Since our society's lost the ability to see the bigger picture -- something the arts help us to do -- nothing can be defended except on the grounds that it brings in money.
Societies should not be run for profit. They exist to promote a larger, more holistic kind of human happiness and security. Art is the lifeblood of a society, embodying and transmitting its values, helping it to see itself, drawing attention to its problems, and healing its wounds so we don't keep repeating the same stupid and costly mistakes over and over.
If art was a money-losing proposition -- and in this country, it's not -- it would still be more vital than a lot of things we waste money on.
Social Life
Just wanted to make sure with the anime group that we were meeting same time, same place for Psychedelic Gay French Vampire Wednesday...? Nothing else has changed but the day?
From an article on CBC where Margaret Atwood lashs out at the Conservatives for trying to kill the anadian arts scene:
"They [the Conservatives] basically just hate us. You know it’s people who have never seen any arts in their own lives — they would rather not have gardens, they would rather have parking lots. They just think it’s a frill probably."Like for everything else worthwhile, the Conservatives have slashing the arts. Our own literary festival in Montreal, Blue Metropolis, lost $150,000.
Atwood focused her article on the economic benefits of the arts in Canada. It's sad art is reduced to defend itself on such a level. Since our society's lost the ability to see the bigger picture -- something the arts help us to do -- nothing can be defended except on the grounds that it brings in money.
Societies should not be run for profit. They exist to promote a larger, more holistic kind of human happiness and security. Art is the lifeblood of a society, embodying and transmitting its values, helping it to see itself, drawing attention to its problems, and healing its wounds so we don't keep repeating the same stupid and costly mistakes over and over.
If art was a money-losing proposition -- and in this country, it's not -- it would still be more vital than a lot of things we waste money on.
Social Life
Just wanted to make sure with the anime group that we were meeting same time, same place for Psychedelic Gay French Vampire Wednesday...? Nothing else has changed but the day?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-25 12:32 pm (UTC)And yes, everything is the same except now on Wednesday. ^_^ I'm almost forgot the DVD this morning but we're good. ^_^
(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-25 01:00 pm (UTC)The problem, I guess, is that art's other purpose -- acting as a mirror to see ourselves -- has been snatched away by the social sciences. I suppose that wouldn't be a problem if the the social sciences were remotely competent at this, but of course they aren't.
The social sciences are too narrow. Any decent novelist has to take in the world -- if they can't enter the personal universes of the richest and the poorest, of men and women, of members of any race, or of societies of long ago -- and do that convincingly -- their work will usually fail unless it's got some other function or asset to help it along.
A social scientist is under no such burden. An economist can reduce human beings to buying machines who sell labour, and never have to consider the larger implications of money and power relationships, the way one's profession and financial independence ties into their sense of self-worth, or any of the the other human factors of money. A sociologist can reduce human beings to a handful of measurable traits, because it's easier that way.
And while the novelist has to prove they understand human beings, the social scientist's degree stands in place of that proof. This is why no matter how many mistakes they make, they never seem to apologize.
I understand life better, I think, because I apply more scepticism to social scientists than to novelists. No novelist is perfect, of course, but if you read widely, they tend to fill up the defeciencies in one another.
This seems absurd, because writing is fiction and there are no qualifications for the job. But much of human existence is absurd, and the vast legions of political scientists and other experts surrounding people like Bush did nothing to avert a stupid and hopeless war -- indeed they promoted and encouraged it, and I bet they won't apologize now that it's failed.
I have yet to meet a member of the "reality-based community" who wasn't an avid reader of either novels or histories. It seems to go with the territory.
Sorry for the long rant. I'm just frustrated that I live in a world of narrow visions.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 06:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 07:31 pm (UTC)By the way, if you did decide to come to Beltaine tonight, let me know -- it's not going to be at my place, so you'd need directions.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 07:35 pm (UTC)And I won't be coming. I'm trying to de-allergize the bedroom at the moment. Sammy went to the hospital last night because he was unable to breathe. We're trying to get as much cat fur out of the bedroom as possible so he can get a full night's rest.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 07:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-01 07:57 pm (UTC)