NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I gotta ask, where along the line of modern society did we decide to pay entertainment millions of dollars over the thousands we pay productive members of society.

I mean who decided that someone who acts for his life should be allowed the better life over those who work and build for their lives? Hell an actor gets paid more with a single movie then the president gets in a year...I just have to ask what the hell were people thinking when they decided that.

So I could sit back, paint random crap and claim its a deep insightful meaning of life and just get paid to BS people like that while someone goes out builds a buisiness and produced a resource to the people and he gets paids yearly what I get paid just from selling that picture.

So I must say, fuck the arts...why should people who devote their lifes to the arts benifit more from it then those of us who chose to better society over entertain it, it even seems now-a-days entertainment has been a primary reason many people I know seem to have gotten stupid (Thank you MTV)

So anyone got a reason I should change my position...cause im not seeing any benifit from paying entertainers more then workers.

Its based on the value generated. Tom Cruise can get paid $60million for a film because his appearance in the film helps to ensure that it will be highly profitable. If you were capable of generating millions of dollars for your employer maybe they would pay you that as well.

Supply and demand. People Demand good entertainers. They are in short supply. Therefore, the entertainers get paid more. If you want entertainers to make less, you either:

1. Kill all the entertainers and anyone who tries (Not recommended)

2. Get a bunch of good entertainers to go professional.

3. Get a bunch of people (Bunch meaning most of the people who like the entertainers) to boycott said entertainers.

I have a bigger problem with the people that can't act, can't paint, can't write, but do it anyways, call it modern and new and claim that if you don't like it you're just a closeminded fool who can't open his or her mind to new ideas, and then get paid for it by idiots who are too afraid of being labeled as a closeminded fool to distinguish between what is good and bad art, leaving those of us with actual talent to scrabble for what's left because we dare to actually defy the societal convention that says everything has to be challenging and free, unlike those who bow to that very convention by conforming to what society holds as challenging and free.

Welcome to the free market. People pay more for what they value more. Yay!

the arts are important.

people like baseball players, on the other hand, should be payed less. They don't speak to the soul, they play a kid's game and get millions for it.

WAIT WAIT WAIT...let me add a little something here to futher my arguement.

Just one person alone made me and makes me question the entertainment industry, I get that the appearance of people get the film good ratings but thats another problem with entertainment (It's become about the profit and not the film, which is why I like independent films more or older ones cause the modern ones are shitty as fuckzors)

But anyway back on track, Paris Hilton...can't act, can't model, can't do menial jobs and can't even make a good sex tape and yet she's made a musical career (Can't sing either) and been placed in movies and shows, she should be placed before the line and shot like the stupid bitch she is. And Tom Cruise...ok so he was a good actor awhile back but now he's a crazy scientologist...he should be given nothing for his work and just tell him that for his pay they'll get rid of some of his scietologist demon thingys

the arts are important.

people like baseball players, on the other hand, should be payed less. They don't speak to the soul, they play a kid's game and get millions for it.

ah yes, because those amazing movies like "meet the spartans" are true pinnacles of art that we certainly need.

90% of art sucks, seriously.

Welcome to the free market. People pay more for what they value more. Yay!

*Cries at stupidity of most people*

So anyone got a reason I should change my position...cause im not seeing any benifit from paying entertainers more then workers.

Then don't. No one said you had to go to movies, pay for cable or buy gaming consoles. Put your money into things you feel more worth your while.

You can't change how others spend their money, however. You presumably chose your current career, and it pays what it pays. If you want to make millions, figure out how to hit a 12-6 curve.

That said, I must add that seven-figure salaries in the "arts" are really far less common than they appear. What we see are the most elite actors, singers, producers, etc. who rake in millions, but in reality they represent a tiny fraction of all the entertainers out there. Most will never earn more than modest incomes--hell, 90% of published writers don't make a living off of their craft--whereas the average white collar worker can support themselves in a stable economy. For every Tom Cruise there are a thousand starving artists, just like for every Peyton Manning there are a thousand kids who will never play past college. It's a long, tough journey to fame that few ever complete, and the ones who do are paid handsomely.

the arts are important.

people like baseball players, on the other hand, should be payed less. They don't speak to the soul, they play a kid's game and get millions for it.

This leads me to the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo, who plays football for Man United and is being offered £150,000 a week to stay in Manchester rather than go to Real Madrid. The reason he is being offered that much money is that his presence at the club is worth more than his wages in terms of the on field success and off field revenues his presence will generate.

I've heard about bench warmers who make millions.

the arts are important.

people like baseball players, on the other hand, should be payed less. They don't speak to the soul, they play a kid's game and get millions for it.

The Simpsons doesn't speak to the soul, either, but it used to be entertaining. Sports are entertaining to many people. And I have to disagree that baseball doesn't speak to the soul. Walt Whitman would disagree, too. Speaking of which, I am totally missing the 3rd inning.

WAIT WAIT WAIT...let me add a little something here to futher my arguement.

Just one person alone made me and makes me question the entertainment industry, I get that the appearance of people get the film good ratings but thats another problem with entertainment (It's become about the profit and not the film, which is why I like independent films more or older ones cause the modern ones are shitty as fuckzors)

But anyway back on track, Paris Hilton...can't act, can't model, can't do menial jobs and can't even make a good sex tape and yet she's made a musical career (Can't sing either) and been placed in movies and shows, she should be placed before the line and shot like the stupid bitch she is. And Tom Cruise...ok so he was a good actor awhile back but now he's a crazy scientologist...he should be given nothing for his work and just tell him that for his pay they'll get rid of some of his scietologist demon thingys
But people (Stupid people admittedly, but people with $$ nonetheless) WANT to hear these people sing/act/pop your head with th power of their thetans/whatever the scientologists say they can do.

*shrugs* I'm not in the arts to entertain others, or to amuse them, or to make them think. I do it because it pleases me. Coincidentally, I also don't get paid to do it. This is less because the music and literature I create is of poor quality and more because it doesn't sell.

I might also add that less than five per cent of artists actually make a lot of money from their work. The very popular bands with major record deals, yeah (well, sometimes -- it's becoming more difficult to sell records now due to the availability of digital music, as it should be). The artists who get large government grants, yeah. The actors who star in big-budget Hollywood style films, yeah. Everyone else? Not really. As for why they make so much.... well.... if people are willing to shell out the cash to see or hear or experience them, then yeah, they are going to make a lot, and they are going to charge higher for their services in other movies/records/art galleries/etc. If nobody paid to see their films, they wouldn't make any money.

Anyway, due to the role the arts have played in societal change and commentary throughout the centuries, I'd say they're a valuable reflection of the values and ideas of their time. Sure, a lot of it is crap -- but what little good stuff there is will still be around in a hundred years' time, and provide a vital role for students of the 2100s to understand what life was like 'way back when people still had computers and ground cars.

I've heard about bench warmers who make millions.

Not every investment proves to be a success.

Well I gotta ask, where along the line of modern society did we decide to pay entertainment millions of dollars over the thousands we pay productive members of society.

I mean who decided that someone who acts for his life should be allowed the better life over those who work and build for their lives? Hell an actor gets paid more with a single movie then the president gets in a year...I just have to ask what the hell were people thinking when they decided that.

So I could sit back, paint random crap and claim its a deep insightful meaning of life and just get paid to BS people like that while someone goes out builds a buisiness and produced a resource to the people and he gets paids yearly what I get paid just from selling that picture.

So I must say, fuck the arts...why should people who devote their lifes to the arts benifit more from it then those of us who chose to better society over entertain it, it even seems now-a-days entertainment has been a primary reason many people I know seem to have gotten stupid (Thank you MTV)

So anyone got a reason I should change my position...cause im not seeing any benifit from paying entertainers more then workers.

A) Yes it's unreasonable that actors get paid more than those who work their backs up to maintain the functionality of the USA

B) Don't blame the arts, as an artist I'm slightly offended but I understand what your getting at. The arts are there to spice up life and enliven dormant parts of the human soul however giving them more credit and wealth than the average joe who makes sure all the lights, water, and produection, ect keeps running is more deserving.

C) From what I learned in history class, the arts helped Americans pull through the Great Depression, ever since then they have been big in American society and culture. Though there is no longer a depression we must take into consideration the fact that the 20s generation loved movies so they grew up with this love and it passed down over the decades. Children grew up seeing their parents love the media so they in turn loved the media and their children observed this and so on. That love for the media still exists today.

I have a bigger problem with the people that can't act, can't paint, can't write, but do it anyways, call it modern and new and claim that if you don't like it you're just a closeminded fool who can't open his or her mind to new ideas, and then get paid for it by idiots who are too afraid of being labeled as a closeminded fool to distinguish between what is good and bad art, leaving those of us with actual talent to scrabble for what's left because we dare to actually defy the societal convention that says everything has to be challenging and free, unlike those who bow to that very convention by conforming to what society holds as challenging and free.

This is the second thread on which you've voiced this opinion, which makes me curious. Yelled at by your art teacher? Rejected by an editor? Confused by accidental over-exposure to Jacques Derrida? Not mocking, honestly curious -- I was accidentally exposed to post-structuralism at 17 and I'm still recovering.

Paris Hilton

oh and bear in mind that if one starts out with a lot of money anyway, one is actually rewarded for not working -- one pays less tax and get more deductions. so one doesn't really need to be talented or successful or anything; it's all about the $.

But anyway back on track, Paris Hilton...can't act, can't model, can't do menial jobs and can't even make a good sex tape and yet she's made a musical career (Can't sing either) and been placed in movies and shows, she should be placed before the line and shot like the stupid bitch she is.

But how much money has she made from those appearances? I bet she doesn't get paid much to star in a film and I doubt her musical career generated much revenue. She is rich from inheritance rather than entertainment.

This is the second thread on which you've voiced this opinion, which makes me curious. Yelled at by your art teacher? Rejected by an editor? Confused by accidental over-exposure to Jacques Derrida? Not mocking, honestly curious -- I was accidentally exposed to post-structuralism at 17 and I'm still recovering.

Nope. I'm a poet (http://z8.invisionfree.com/SSA05/index.php?showforum=19), and I'm tired of listening to people's badly-written emo poetry, and more tired of being criticized for calling it badly-written.

Oh, and slam poetry is absolute shyte. I have heard the worst poetry spoken, but it is lauded as amazing because it's a sob-story. Not that I have anything against sob-stories. I have everything against people who can't write so they use their sob-story as a substitute for talent.

oh and bear in mind that if one starts out with a lot of money anyway, one is actually rewarded for not working -- one pays less tax and get more deductions. so one doesn't really need to be talented or successful or anything; it's all about the $.

yes but see thats the point, it proves the sad fact the modern society values their movie more then their project. Now I wouldn't have a problem if Miss Hilton were just the rich bitch she was but who gave the the idiotic idea that made her go into movies and signing, both of which are horrible and she should be burned at the stake for it. She's already rich, she doesn't need to make crappy shit to get extra money so is there a decent entertainment industry that prefers actualy artistic means over general revenue.

But anyway back on track, Paris Hilton...can't act, can't model, can't do menial jobs and can't even make a good sex tape and yet she's made a musical career (Can't sing either) and been placed in movies and shows, she should be placed before the line and shot like the stupid bitch she is. And Tom Cruise...ok so he was a good actor awhile back but now he's a crazy scientologist...he should be given nothing for his work and just tell him that for his pay they'll get rid of some of his scietologist demon thingys

Her complete lack of talent is exactly why she has the career she has. What's more amusing than watching Paris do things badly? Many things, but a lot of people still watch it anyways.

WAIT WAIT WAIT...let me add a little something here to futher my argument....Paris Hilton....And Tom Cruise...

So you title your thread "Fuck the 'arts'" and this is inspired by...Paris Hilton and Tom Cruise? It seems like you're confusing "the arts" with entertainment journalism. The shadow cast by the thing is not the thing itself*, even though the two do have some interaction.

*Few people know that Plato was actually critiquing the Greeks' obsession with celebrities.

the arts are important.

people like baseball players, on the other hand, should be payed less. They don't speak to the soul, they play a kid's game and get millions for it.

Baseball speaks to my soul . . .

Nope. I'm a poet (http://z8.invisionfree.com/SSA05/index.php?showforum=19), and I'm tired of listening to people's badly-written emo poetry, and more tired of being criticized for calling it badly-written.

Oh, and slam poetry is absolute shyte. I have heard the worst poetry spoken, but it is lauded as amazing because it's a sob-story. Not that I have anything against sob-stories. I have everything against people who can't write so they use their sob-story as a substitute for talent.

You have my sympathies. This is why many great poets avoided the society of other poets. Emily Dickinson locked herself away for years. Wilfred Owen went so far as to die in WWI rather than deal with the gits of his native country. Absent a war or an independent income, perhaps you could just go mad? It's a popular option. As a bonus, you wouldn't have to hear about Paris Hilton in your sanitarium.

As an actor myself, my main problem is with people of the Paris Hilton ilk who are "famous for being famous." I'll even go so far as to agree that many celebrities are grossly overpaid. But I must add two things: 1) there is a difference between an actor and a celebrity. 2) The arts are important; not merely as "entertainment", but as a shared cultural experience. Also remember that celebirites, be they actors, musicians, or whatever, are while they may be making large sums of money themselves, really just tools being used to make someone else even larger sums of money.

You have my sympathies. This is why many great poets avoided the society of other poets. Emily Dickinson locked herself away for years. Wilfred Owen went so far as to die in WWI rather than deal with the gits of his native country. Absent a war or an independent income, perhaps you could just go mad? It's a popular option. As a bonus, you wouldn't have to hear about Paris Hilton in your sanitarium.

but what if you're a poet, and don't kno.... well, someone had to do it :headbang:

As an actor myself, my main problem is with people of the Paris Hilton ilk who are "famous for being famous." I'll even go so far as to agree that many celebrities are grossly overpaid. But I must add two things: 1) there is a difference between an actor and a celebrity. 2) The arts are important; not merely as "entertainment", but as a shared cultural experience. Also remember that celebirites, be they actors, musicians, or whatever, are while they may be making large sums of money themselves, really just tools being used to make someone else even larger sums of money.

In addition, not all good artists are celebrities, and vice versa -- fame has less to do with talent and a lot more to do with marketing. With the right people and enough money to start with, you can sell just about anything (as Paris Hilton proves).

Nope. I'm a poet (http://z8.invisionfree.com/SSA05/index.php?showforum=19), and I'm tired of listening to people's badly-written emo poetry, and more tired of being criticized for calling it badly-written.

Oh, and slam poetry is absolute shyte. I have heard the worst poetry spoken, but it is lauded as amazing because it's a sob-story. Not that I have anything against sob-stories. I have everything against people who can't write so they use their sob-story as a substitute for talent.

Seriously, I can't stand overly emotive, uninspired, cliched, sophomoric, trite stuff like

What is your name, I wonder,
You, who knows me in my bed?
Where do you go, I wonder,
When you’re not inside my head?


...

Or, in other words, if you're going to critique others literary works while providing a link to your own, you best be Robert fucking Pisnky.

Seriously, I can't stand overly emotive, uninspired, cliched, sophomoric, trite stuff like

...

Or, in other words, if you're going to critique others literary works while providing a link to your own, you best be Robert fucking Pisnky.

I fully admit that this particular poem of mine is campy as hell. I also submit that it's campy on purpose.

I also submit that it contains several correctly used literary tropes, which was done on purpose. So it make be trite, cliche, and campy, but it's on purpose, and I actually worked on it, rather than throwing random trite crap together without regard to actual talent.

But no, that's not my best. A new title would help...

But anyway back on track, Paris Hilton...can't act, can't model, can't do menial jobs and can't even make a good sex tape and yet she's made a musical career (Can't sing either) and been placed in movies and shows, she should be placed before the line and shot like the stupid bitch she is. And Tom Cruise...ok so he was a good actor awhile back but now he's a crazy scientologist...he should be given nothing for his work and just tell him that for his pay they'll get rid of some of his scietologist demon thingys
In Capitalist America, celebrity becomes you.

I have a bigger problem with the people that can't act, can't paint, can't write, but do it anyways, call it modern and new and claim that if you don't like it you're just a closeminded fool who can't open his or her mind to new ideas, and then get paid for it by idiots who are too afraid of being labeled as a closeminded fool to distinguish between what is good and bad art, leaving those of us with actual talent to scrabble for what's left because we dare to actually defy the societal convention that says everything has to be challenging and free, unlike those who bow to that very convention by conforming to what society holds as challenging and free.

The Hirschhorn Museum is a classic example of multi-million dollar crap.

http://hirshhorn.si.edu/

The whole place is a dogpile of stupid. I've been there several times, and you have two types of people who visit - a handful who think it's deep and meaningful and artistic, and the 99 percent who walk through laughing at who would have been stupid enough to pay ANY amount of money for it... and then they want their 30 minutes and their tax dollars back.

Well I gotta ask, where along the line of modern society did we decide to pay entertainment millions of dollars over the thousands we pay productive members of society.
Since about forever...

The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans etc. valued their artists of all kinds a great deal, just as we did in medieval times, and from then onwards...

Well I gotta ask, where along the line of modern society did we decide to pay entertainment millions of dollars over the thousands we pay productive members of society.

Well, you personally aren't paying the millions of dollars. You're paying for a $10 movie ticket, for example, and only a portion of that money goes toward those who helped create it. Now, when you renovate your kitchen, for example, you pay the installer $200 a day, most of which goes directly to him, and the rest to insurance, materials, petrol and so forth.

As a society, we've always appreciated entertainment. And entertainment is something we, as human beings, tend to seek. Whether we find that entertainment through books, seeing films, watching television, going to plays, seeing sports etc, we appreciate that entertainment, and if we pay what we can afford. If you can afford to see the opera for say $150, that's your perogative. Or if you'd rather sit and watch TV, again it's up to you, your tastes and your personal fiances.

Many people are willing to pay money to see films, and thusly the film industry makes money, and therefore can pay their actors accordingly.

I mean who decided that someone who acts for his life should be allowed the better life over those who work and build for their lives? Hell an actor gets paid more with a single movie then the president gets in a year...I just have to ask what the hell were people thinking when they decided that.

1. The president shouldn't get paid megamillions, but that's a different argument all together.
2. Not all actors are financially successful. In fact, most aren't. It's a job that requires training, skill, talent, perseverence, phsysical maintanence, travel, time and sacrifice. So those who work very hard to make it big deserve the money they get.

So I could sit back, paint random crap and claim its a deep insightful meaning of life and just get paid to BS people like that while someone goes out builds a buisiness and produced a resource to the people and he gets paids yearly what I get paid just from selling that picture.

Well, no, you couldn't. Especially not with that attitude. Again, most artists aren't multimillionaires. Haven't you ever heard of the cliched "starving artist"? Again, art is a very difficult industry to succeed in, and it requires a lot of time, talent and training. An artist that lives of his/her work generally spends just as much time - if not more - than the average 9-5 worker creating artwork. They dedicate their lives to it, and if they are succesful, that's great!

If you don't want to pay 500,000 for a painting, don't. But those who do have the money are entitled to spend it how they want, and if they are wealthy and in love with a piece, why should the artist ask for less than they're willing to pay?

And, how would them earning any less help you earn more?

So I must say, fuck the arts...why should people who devote their lifes to the arts benifit more from it then those of us who chose to better society over entertain it, it even seems now-a-days entertainment has been a primary reason many people I know seem to have gotten stupid (Thank you MTV)

How on earth do you think that those who dedicate their lives to the arts don't try to better society? And why should that even matter?

What about people like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. They donate millions and millions of dollars to charity and they actively help the less fortunate. If they didn't earn the millions of dollars that they earn, how would they be able to help anyone?

If people you know have "gotten stupid" that's their own fault. If they choose to sit around watching MTV all day, that's their own fault, not the arts' fault.

So anyone got a reason I should change my position...cause im not seeing any benifit from paying entertainers more then workers.

... I think you need to get an education, that's what I think.

So anyone got a reason I should change my position...cause im not seeing any benifit from paying entertainers more then workers.
It's simple. Machinery does most of the work of manual labour nowadays, because it's so much better at it than we are, and it doesn't need the huge upkeep of an employee. Humans as workers just aren't worth the resources.

But machines don't do originality, or creativity, or emotion. That's what humans are good for, and consequently, that's where they're most valuable.

Yeah, I don’t agree with paying artists or actors millions of dollars for something. But you have to remember that for every famous one there are dozens of struggling actors, artists, musicians, etc., having to take extra jobs to try and pursue their dream. And most of them don’t make it. I guess it sort of balances itself out.

Do 'the arts' really offer nothing to society? Where would you be without it? Imagine how horribly dull life would be.

WAIT WAIT WAIT...let me add a little something here to futher my arguement.

Just one person alone made me and makes me question the entertainment industry, I get that the appearance of people get the film good ratings but thats another problem with entertainment (It's become about the profit and not the film, which is why I like independent films more or older ones cause the modern ones are shitty as fuckzors)

Exactly how old are you talking, sweetheart? Because clearly you need to learn a thing or two about the film industry.

But anyway back on track, Paris Hilton...can't act, can't model, can't do menial jobs and can't even make a good sex tape and yet she's made a musical career (Can't sing either) and been placed in movies and shows, she should be placed before the line and shot like the stupid bitch she is. And Tom Cruise...ok so he was a good actor awhile back but now he's a crazy scientologist...he should be given nothing for his work and just tell him that for his pay they'll get rid of some of his scietologist demon thingys

She should be shot because she makes more money than you? Hmm.... *cough Hitler cough*

If people pay to listen to her music or see her in films, what does it matter? She hasn't made that much money from her entertainment efforts in comparison to her inhertence. Sure, it's annoying that she's not particularly talented but still successful, but her success doesn't stop you being succesful, so I can't understand the resentment.

Wow, bringing religion into it now too? So, he's Sceintologist. Does that mean he doesn't deserve the money he makes?

yes but see thats the point, it proves the sad fact the modern society values their movie more then their project. Now I wouldn't have a problem if Miss Hilton were just the rich bitch she was but who gave the the idiotic idea that made her go into movies and signing, both of which are horrible and she should be burned at the stake for it. She's already rich, she doesn't need to make crappy shit to get extra money so is there a decent entertainment industry that prefers actualy artistic means over general revenue.

Art vs Entertainment is an on going debate within the film and music industries. You're not exactly rasing anything new, here.

Nope. I'm a poet (http://z8.invisionfree.com/SSA05/index.php?showforum=19), and I'm tired of listening to people's badly-written emo poetry, and more tired of being criticized for calling it badly-written.

Oh, and slam poetry is absolute shyte. I have heard the worst poetry spoken, but it is lauded as amazing because it's a sob-story. Not that I have anything against sob-stories. I have everything against people who can't write so they use their sob-story as a substitute for talent.

... Shouldn't you, you know, be good if you're trying to make a point about talent?

As an actor myself, my main problem is with people of the Paris Hilton ilk who are "famous for being famous." I'll even go so far as to agree that many celebrities are grossly overpaid. But I must add two things: 1) there is a difference between an actor and a celebrity. 2) The arts are important; not merely as "entertainment", but as a shared cultural experience. Also remember that celebirites, be they actors, musicians, or whatever, are while they may be making large sums of money themselves, really just tools being used to make someone else even larger sums of money.

It's annoying, but still, her being famous doesn't stop you becomming famous, so if you have the determination and talent, there's no need to resent her.

I fully admit that this particular poem of mine is campy as hell. I also submit that it's campy on purpose.

I also submit that it contains several correctly used literary tropes, which was done on purpose. So it make be trite, cliche, and campy, but it's on purpose, and I actually worked on it, rather than throwing random trite crap together without regard to actual talent.

But no, that's not my best. A new title would help...

"Campy on purpose." Spoken like a true poet. Lucky you aren't making millions, because that would make Nerotika angry.

It's simple. Machinery does most of the work of manual labour nowadays, because it's so much better at it than we are, and it doesn't need the huge upkeep of an employee. Humans as workers just aren't worth the resources.

But machines don't do originality, or creativity, or emotion. That's what humans are good for, and consequently, that's where they're most valuable.

... You still need human beings to operate machinery.

Well I gotta ask, where along the line of modern society did we decide to pay entertainment millions of dollars over the thousands we pay productive members of society.

I mean who decided that someone who acts for his life should be allowed the better life over those who work and build for their lives? Hell an actor gets paid more with a single movie then the president gets in a year...I just have to ask what the hell were people thinking when they decided that.

So I could sit back, paint random crap and claim its a deep insightful meaning of life and just get paid to BS people like that while someone goes out builds a buisiness and produced a resource to the people and he gets paids yearly what I get paid just from selling that picture.

So I must say, fuck the arts...why should people who devote their lifes to the arts benifit more from it then those of us who chose to better society over entertain it, it even seems now-a-days entertainment has been a primary reason many people I know seem to have gotten stupid (Thank you MTV)

So anyone got a reason I should change my position...cause im not seeing any benifit from paying entertainers more then workers.

Meh supply and demand innit! If there is high demand, and if people will pay, then these 'entertianers' get rich.

What ya gonna do huh!

Welcome to the free market.

In any case, a society is judged not upon its capacity to produce efficient, prosaic drones, but upon the quality and sophistication of intellectual work it produces.

... You still need human beings to operate machinery.
'cept with Von Neumann architecture and all that, the instructions that tell the machine what to do can be kept on the machine itself. You don't need humans to operate machinery - you just need to instruct once and leave the machines to it. It's usually a good idea to check in every now and then to make sure it's doing what it's supposed to, but this, too, could potentially be an automated process.

Or, in other words, if you're going to critique others literary works while providing a link to your own, you best be Robert fucking Pisnky.

If Pinsky popped up on the boards, that would be awesome. I would totally be like his frat-boy fans on The Simpsons: "Basho! Banana Tree! Whoo!"

I have a bigger problem with the people that can't act, can't paint, can't write, but do it anyways, call it modern and new and claim that if you don't like it you're just a closeminded fool who can't open his or her mind to new ideas, and then get paid for it by idiots who are too afraid of being labeled as a closeminded fool to distinguish between what is good and bad art, leaving those of us with actual talent to scrabble for what's left because we dare to actually defy the societal convention that says everything has to be challenging and free, unlike those who bow to that very convention by conforming to what society holds as challenging and free.

There's always the possibility that these people are talented and that maybe you don't get it or don't want to get it. After all, I can knock over a bottle of water and call it art but no one is going to pay me millions even if I threaten to call them a close minded fool.

I fully admit that this particular poem of mine is campy as hell. I also submit that it's campy on purpose.

I also submit that it contains several correctly used literary tropes, which was done on purpose. So it make be trite, cliche, and campy, but it's on purpose, and I actually worked on it, rather than throwing random trite crap together without regard to actual talent.

But no, that's not my best. A new title would help...

The one I looked at on that forum was called "Rain in Fall". Was that also meant to be trite and meaningless? Do you have anything that isn't intentionally rubbish?

Oh, and in reply to the OP... welcome to capitalism! You pay more for diamonds than you do for water.

Well I gotta ask, where along the line of modern society did we decide to pay entertainment millions of dollars over the thousands we pay productive members of society.

I mean who decided that someone who acts for his life should be allowed the better life over those who work and build for their lives? Hell an actor gets paid more with a single movie then the president gets in a year...I just have to ask what the hell were people thinking when they decided that.

So I could sit back, paint random crap and claim its a deep insightful meaning of life and just get paid to BS people like that while someone goes out builds a buisiness and produced a resource to the people and he gets paids yearly what I get paid just from selling that picture.

So I must say, fuck the arts...why should people who devote their lifes to the arts benifit more from it then those of us who chose to better society over entertain it, it even seems now-a-days entertainment has been a primary reason many people I know seem to have gotten stupid (Thank you MTV)

So anyone got a reason I should change my position...cause im not seeing any benifit from paying entertainers more then workers.

CEO's of some of the top companies make just as much, like someone pointed out, it is all about how much money you can generate in return

Yeah, I don’t agree with paying artists or actors millions of dollars for something.

Thing about that is that the films they're in make millions, often because of their participation. If your work was earning your employer millions, would you be happy with minimum wage?

... Shouldn't you, you know, be good if you're trying to make a point about talent?

Your opinion of my poetry isn't biased at all by your personal dislike of me because I accurately described you as being excitable in a thread. Nope.

"Campy on purpose." Spoken like a true poet. Lucky you aren't making millions, because that would make Nerotika angry.

Poets never make millions, unfortunately. Alas, I'm doomed to a life of low income. Oh well.

There's always the possibility that you are talented and that maybe I don't get it or don't want to get it.

Hey, look at that! Argument invalidated. That was easy.

In any case, I do differentiate between art that I don't particularly like but is still good (Edgar Allen Poe), art I don't particularly think is talented (E. E. Cummings), and art that is truly untalented (my ex Michelle. And I thought her poetry was crap before we broke up, I just didn't tell her that because I wanted poon).

After all, I can knock over a bottle of water and call it art but no one is going to pay me millions even if I threaten to call them a close minded fool.

Google is awesome...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/488343657_f5964582b6.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1141/1334227862_a2dd447b93.jpg?v=0

Not that anyone is necessarily paying for it, but you know. Someone is trying, at least.

The one I looked at on that forum was called "Rain in Fall". Was that also meant to be trite and meaningless? Do you have anything that isn't intentionally rubbish?

You'd probably think Rain in Summer is worse. Or ...Spring. Not sure which you'd dislike more, actually. Either way.

Oh, on topic and whatnot:
Paying for actors isn't paying for talent, it's paying for entertainment. If you are entertained, they have done their job, regardless of whether or not it was good entertainment.
Similarly, you're not paying for artists' art, you're paying to make your walls less boring, and the right to brag about how cultured and/or rich you are.
Literature is paying for entertainment and culture.

Hey, look at that! Argument invalidated. That was easy.

No. Because that has nothing to do with the motivations of a third party.


In any case, I do differentiate between art that I don't particularly like but is still good (Edgar Allen Poe), art I don't particularly think is talented (E. E. Cummings), and art that is truly untalented (my ex Michelle. And I thought her poetry was crap before we broke up, I just didn't tell her that because I wanted poon).

You might not think that E. E Cummings is talented but that doesn't mean that those who do only do so because they are afraid of being labelled close minded.

Google is awesome...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/488343657_f5964582b6.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1141/1334227862_a2dd447b93.jpg?v=0

Not that anyone is necessarily paying for it, but you know. Someone is trying, at least.

That these aren't regarded as famous works of art is surely evidence supporting my argument.

Paying for actors isn't paying for talent, it's paying for entertainment.

Not all films and plays are made or seen to entertain.


Similarly, you're not paying for artists' art, you're paying to make your walls less boring, and the right to brag about how cultured and/or rich you are.

Again, people do buy art because they appreciate it or are moved by it and not just because they've got some wall space to fill.

Your opinion of my poetry isn't biased at all by your personal dislike of me because I accurately described you as being excitable in a thread. Nope.



Poets never make millions, unfortunately. Alas, I'm doomed to a life of low income. Oh well.



Hey, look at that! Argument invalidated. That was easy.

In any case, I do differentiate between art that I don't particularly like but is still good (Edgar Allen Poe), art I don't particularly think is talented (E. E. Cummings), and art that is truly untalented (my ex Michelle. And I thought her poetry was crap before we broke up, I just didn't tell her that because I wanted poon).



Google is awesome...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/488343657_f5964582b6.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1141/1334227862_a2dd447b93.jpg?v=0

Not that anyone is necessarily paying for it, but you know. Someone is trying, at least.



You'd probably think Rain in Summer is worse. Or ...Spring. Not sure which you'd dislike more, actually. Either way.

Oh, on topic and whatnot:
Paying for actors isn't paying for talent, it's paying for entertainment. If you are entertained, they have done their job, regardless of whether or not it was good entertainment.
Similarly, you're not paying for artists' art, you're paying to make your walls less boring, and the right to brag about how cultured and/or rich you are.
Literature is paying for entertainment and culture.

I'm disturbed that someone with such a reductionist and dismissive view of artistic expression is endeavoring to produce art that is arguably the most expressive and insightful mediums. Your commercialist dismissals is a temperament better suited for Graphic Art.

No. Because that has nothing to do with the motivations of a third party.
It has everything to do with your motivations.

You might not think that E. E Cummings is talented but that doesn't mean that those who do only do so because they are afraid of being labelled close minded.

Did I ever suggest that I think this is the motivation behind all art?

That these aren't regarded as famous works of art is surely evidence supporting my argument.

I wasn't trying to support anything. Just making a point: people are trying.

Not all films and plays are made or seen to entertain.

I never said anything about the purpose of making them. I only commented on the reason many people pay to see them.

Again, people do buy art because they appreciate it or are moved by it and not just because they've got some wall space to fill.

You can be equally moved by a cheaper re-print of it.

In any case, it was a gross generalization to explain why actors get paid far more than they should: because when you pay to see a bad actor it's not about how talented they are, it's about how entertained you are. Thus, Nickolas Cage. Stop assuming you know what I'm talking about.

I'm disturbed that someone with such a reductionist and dismissive view of artistic expression is endeavoring to produce art that is arguably the most expressive and insightful mediums. Your commercialist dismissals is a temperament better suited for Graphic Art.

I don't have a reductionist and dismissive view of art. I have a reductionist and dismissive view of why the vast majority of people pay money for it.



I also have a reductionist and dismissive view of NSG.

I don't have a reductionist and dismissive view of art. I have a reductionist and dismissive view of why the vast majority of people pay money for it.



I also have a reductionist and dismissive view of NSG.

"The artist hating his audience" is kind of a tired trope and often a mask for the artist resenting the fact that he or she has failed to affectively communicate and blames everyone but themselves. "The audience are sheep" is the dirty step cousin to "you just don't understand my work."

Thing about that is that the films they're in make millions, often because of their participation. If your work was earning your employer millions, would you be happy with minimum wage?
If the money didn't go to the artists involved in the production it would go to the producers, and seriously, those guys are assholes.

Since about forever...

The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans etc. valued their artists of all kinds a great deal, just as we did in medieval times, and from then onwards...

Actually, the dark ages (medieval times) were just that dark. Art was in horrible shape, the only written word was that of the church, and everyone was pretty stupid, in bad health, and concerned with stamping out Islam and Judaism (in Europe). Maybe the pope was a celebrity? hehe.

I also have a reductionist and dismissive view of NSG.
I think we noticed that.

"The artist hating his audience" is kind of a tired trope and often a mask for the artist resenting the fact that he or she has failed to affectively communicate and blames everyone but themselves. "The audience are sheep" is the dirty step cousin to "you just don't understand my work."

I never said I hated my audience. I'm just cynical. There are plenty of cultured people. Besides, I write poetry. If I was worried about people's motives for buying my art I got into the wrong field, because few people actually pay for poetry anymore. I can actually trust the motives of people who buy poetry because of that: they bothered to pay for it, so more than likely they appreciate it.

And if I'm wrong, why are people still paying to see Ben Afleck movies?

Anyways, there are plenty of people who like my poetry. Nanatsu certainly likes it. I don't expect everyone to like what I write. I expect everyone to give me the same chance as anyone else and not judge what I write based solely on the fact that it's not about growing up underprivileged in the ghetto with no father and a junkie mother.

Nope. I'm a poet (http://z8.invisionfree.com/SSA05/index.php?showforum=19), and I'm tired of listening to people's badly-written emo poetry, and more tired of being criticized for calling it badly-written.

Oh, and slam poetry is absolute shyte. I have heard the worst poetry spoken, but it is lauded as amazing because it's a sob-story. Not that I have anything against sob-stories. I have everything against people who can't write so they use their sob-story as a substitute for talent.

I used to comment to people how sad it was that most of the population seems to get it's poetry these days from car commercials... but no one seemed to care or find that particularilly upsetting, so I stopped.

I think we noticed that.

I'm glad I'm getting that across effectively. I was worried it wasn't showing.

Nerotika, can you please make a bit of a distinction between Hollywood movies and "the arts" as a whole? Your OP makes an absurd leap from Tom Cruise's salary to a visual artist's painting. There's a wide gulf of difference, especially considering that no modern visual artist commands a tenth of Cruise's film salary. You must know that "the arts" as a whole also includes dance, theater, poetry, music, and many more things than just movies. In fact, I don't think most movies really qualify for things like federal arts funding or arts grants.

I appreciate and even agree to a point with you about what you're trying to say about the inflated salaries of entertainers -- but there is a line between an entertainer and an artist. True, it can be blurred or crossed, but not very often and less often successfully.

Your opinion of my poetry isn't biased at all by your personal dislike of me because I accurately described you as being excitable in a thread. Nope.

No, actually. It's based purely on the my opinion that your poetry isn't good.

Nerotika, can you please make a bit of a distinction between Hollywood movies and "the arts" as a whole? Your OP makes an absurd leap from Tom Cruise's salary to a visual artist's painting. There's a wide gulf of difference, especially considering that no modern visual artist commands a tenth of Cruise's film salary. You must know that "the arts" as a whole also includes dance, theater, poetry, music, and many more things than just movies. In fact, I don't think most movies really qualify for things like federal arts funding or arts grants.

I appreciate and even agree to a point with you about what you're trying to say about the inflated salaries of entertainers -- but there is a line between an entertainer and an artist. True, it can be blurred or crossed, but not very often and less often successfully.

Well, it depends on how you define "entertainer" and "artist". Art is a very broad term, and therefore so is "artist". An actor is essentially an "artist".

Films qualify for government funding where I come from.

Films qualify for government funding where I come from.

Some films do, especially in countries that have a limited film industry. But these films have a small budget and aren't mass-marketed items of entertainment.

Well for one thing, natural skill and ability can't be taught. You can learn to be a doctor, policeman, etc but you can't learn to have good looks or run really, really fast.

Some films do, especially in countries that have a limited film industry. But these films have a small budget and aren't mass-marketed items of entertainment.

In fact if they were commercial movies they wouldn't qualify for a grant. You don't get a grant to make The Rocketeer II:Electric Boogaloo because you can't find funding, you just don't get to make that movie.

In fact if they were commercial movies they wouldn't qualify for a grant. You don't get a grant to make The Rocketeer II:Electric Boogaloo because you can't find funding, you just don't get to make that movie.

You can get some films of that kind that do receive government money - St. Trinians is a recent example. But generally speaking you're right.

Well for one thing, natural skill and ability can't be taught. You can learn to be a doctor, policeman, etc but you can't learn to have good looks or run really, really fast.

Nor to write poetry, good poetry at that. It´s a natural thing. You can teach Geri Haliwell to sing, but she´ll never be a María Callas. You can teach Britney Spears to write a song, but she´ll never be as good as Frank Sinatra. Antonio Banderas can act, but he´ll never be, in a 100 years, as good as an Ian McKellen. These people I mentioned are mediocre at best. True artistic inclination is an attribute you´re born with, it´s not taught to you.

As for Rhyno´s claim, aside from that psycho poem, he´s a pretty decent writer. I´ve had the opportunity of reading several things he´s written, and he´s good. One thing is the face he may present here, which is cool, but another thing is judging him mediocre without having a broader idea of his work or just because the NSGer is all you get to see.

And although my opinion means shit to some (and whatever you think means shit to me), that´s the way I see it. If no one likes it, feel free to not read my post.

No, actually. It's based purely on the my opinion that your poetry isn't good.

Shenanigans.

Nor to write poetry, good poetry at that. It´s a natural thing. You can teach Geri Haliwell to sing, but she´ll never be a María Callas. You can teach Britney Spears to write a song, but she´ll never be as good as Frank Sinatra. Antonio Banderas can act, but he´ll never be, in a 100 years, as good as an Ian McKellen. These people I mentioned are mediocre at best. True artistic inclination is an attribute you´re born with, it´s not taught to you.

Antonio Banderas doesn't need to act. He is sexy enough to make up for it. I would let him do dirty things to me. But he has to wear the Zorro mask.

And although my opinion means shit to some (and whatever you think means shit to me), that´s the way I see it. If no one likes it, feel free to not read my post.

I respect your opinion more than others, as you have provided constructive criticism of my work, rather than ZOMG YER WERK IZ TEH SUCKS! ZOMG ITS TRITE!!!1!

Nameless Dream really does need a new title, though.

I respect your opinion more than others, as you have provided constructive criticism of my work, rather than ZOMG YER WERK IZ TEH SUCKS! ZOMG ITS TRITE!!!1!

Nameless Dream really does need a new title, though.

I´ve done the same thing as you when it comes to my own work. Returning the favor.

Besides, as I told you earlier, many people just know the face you put on here and don´t bother to get to know Rhyno. I bothered to get to know a bit of you and that´s why I can appreciate what you have to say in the forum and outside. Pity not everyone bothers the same and are quick to classify.

I´ve done the same thing as you when it comes to my own work. Returning the favor.

Besides, as I told you earlier, many people just know the face you put on here and don´t bother to get to know Rhyno. I bothered to get to know a bit of you and that´s why I can appreciate what you have to say in the forum and outside. Pity not everyone bothers the same and are quick to classify.

In their defense, I do have a reductionist and dismissive view of NSG.

In their defense, I do have a reductionist and dismissive view of NSG.

That sounds more like a detriment than a defense.:D

That sounds more like a detriment than a defense.:D

It's kind of a turn-off for most NSGers.

It's kind of a turn-off for most NSGers.

And well it should be used more often.

Supply and demand. People Demand good entertainers. They are in short supply. Therefore, the entertainers get paid more. If you want entertainers to make less, you either:

1. Kill all the entertainers and anyone who tries (Not recommended)

2. Get a bunch of good entertainers to go professional.

3. Get a bunch of people (Bunch meaning most of the people who like the entertainers) to boycott said entertainers.

Not exactly. There are plenty of people as good-looking and talented as Brad Pitt. But a lot of work has gone into promoting his brand where as all they others are anonymous.

If the success of entertainers was based on their talent, the Backstreet Boys would never have outsold the Beatles.

Entertainers aren't workers, they're products. Just like it cost millions to fund the engineering that went into the last Ford SUV, it cost millions to fund the hype that created 50 Cent, who is then mass produced and distributed via a marketing scheme.

<snip>

<snip>

Is Colonel's Chicken (http://z8.invisionfree.com/SSA05/index.php?showtopic=768) more suited to your taste?

It's not overly emotive or pretentious, and I'm fairly certain it's not cliche. But it is meaningless. Sorry.

Not exactly. There are plenty of people as good-looking and talented as Brad Pitt. But a lot of work has gone into promoting his brand where as all they others are anonymous.

And why does he get picked out for special promotion?

If the success of entertainers was based on their talent, the Backstreet Boys would never have outsold the Beatles.

The Beatles are by far the biggest selling act of all time.

Whilst talent is subjective, so is success. Billions more dollars have been spent by the public on movies directed by Ron Howard than on movies directed by Ingmar Bergman. I doubt the latter felt like he wasn't as successful as the former.

But, yes, you're broadly right about brands. Actors need good scripts and good directors. They need good agents and good publicists. Singers need good songwriters, producers, labels and the rest. But there's a strong correlation between talent at producing mass market entertainment and the public responding to that.

As for Rhyno´s claim, aside from that psycho poem, he´s a pretty decent writer. I´ve had the opportunity of reading several things he´s written, and he´s good. One thing is the face he may present here, which is cool, but another thing is judging him mediocre without having a broader idea of his work or just because the NSGer is all you get to see.I'm not sure why the defense is being put up. He made a comment that he was sick of trite, over emotional poetry and linked some of his poems. When people began pointing out that the work he linked was exactly what he hated, he got defensive and said he did that on purpose.

He may very well have other works that are wonderful, but unfortunately all we have to go on is what he showed us, so that is what was judged. Sure, some of the comments were a bit sharp, but considering the tone of his original post, I wasn't terribly surprised. Either way, criticism is a vital part of any art. It doesn't improve your craft to disregard negative criticism.


Back to the O.P.

If people will pay them that much, then they deserve it. I'll take an art world with some overpaid celebrities over no art world at all.

I believe that art is popular and successful for the sole purpose of frustrating Nerotika. If not, it appears to be a valuable and agreeable precipitate nonetheless.

Well for one thing, natural skill and ability can't be taught. You can learn to be a doctor, policeman, etc but you can't learn to have good looks or run really, really fast.

I disagree . . ..you have to be born with a number of mental traits to be a doctor (ability to learn fast, Ability to stand the sight of blood etc., Ability to think under pressure, ability to work around stress) and you have to be a certain kind of person to work as a cop as well.

I'm not sure why the defense is being put up. He made a comment that he was sick of trite, over emotional poetry and linked some of his poems. When people began pointing out that the work he linked was exactly what he hated, he got defensive and said he did that on purpose.

He may very well have other works that are wonderful, but unfortunately all we have to go on is what he showed us, so that is what was judged. Sure, some of the comments were a bit sharp, but considering the tone of his original post, I wasn't terribly surprised. Either way, criticism is a vital part of any art. It doesn't improve your craft to disregard negative criticism.

There was no need to defend him. Rhyno can do that very well on his own. But it´s kind of grating (of course, that´s NSG specialty) to see a large amount of criticism (even when it´s vital for the growth of an artist) when no one here bothered to take a look at the other things he´s written. He linked you all to the psycho poem, but in the same section where that link takes you, are some of his other poems. Has anyone bothered to read them or is your opinion of Rhyno´s capabilities so little you decided it´s ok to judge his work just by that one poem? Disappointing, really, but not unexpected.:rolleyes:

There was no need to defend him. Rhyno can do that very well on his own. But it´s kind of grating (of course, that´s NSG specialty) to see a large amount of criticism (even when it´s vital for the growth of an artist) when no one here bothered to take a look at the other things he´s written. He linked you all to the psycho poem, but in the same section where that link takes you, are some of his other poems. Has anyone bothered to read them or is your opinion of Rhyno´s capabilities so little you decided it´s ok to judge his work just by that one poem? Disappointing, really, but not unexpected.:rolleyes:The defense wasn't just concerning you, it concerned Rhyno as well. And I don't think he defended himself very well. Maybe on other topics, but not on the poetry he provided. Which I don't necessarily blame him for. Poetry is a personal art form, but criticism and a tougher skin is still necessary.

How do you know no one read the other few poems that were on that page? He linked a forum with six of his poems on it and two essays. I read over the poetry and honestly wasn't impressed. It was very cliché and didn't really say anything. My biggest criticism of it is that he should focus his poetry more, be more specific. If the poetry doesn't mean anything to the reader, then it isn't doing its job. And most of all, he should find more original phrasings. Experimenting with different forms would help broaden his work as well.

The defense wasn't just concerning you, it concerned Rhyno as well. And I don't think he defended himself very well. Maybe on other topics, but not on the poetry he provided. Which I don't necessarily blame him for. Poetry is a personal art form, but criticism and a tougher skin is still necessary.

How do you know no one read the other few poems that were on that page? He linked a forum with six of his poems on it and two essays. I read over the poetry and honestly wasn't impressed. It was very cliché and didn't really say anything. My biggest criticism of it is that he should focus his poetry more, be more specific. And most of all, he should find more original phrasings. Experimenting with different forms would help broaden his work as well.

And my last post had nothing to do with you personal assesment of Rhyno´s poetry. You, Luna Amore, read through his poetry. Did any of the other people criticizing the aforementioned poem read the other poems to form a general idea of his style? It seems to me they didn´t, and clung like leeches to the one poem he provided a link to.

You could give constructive criticism, you, but I don´t think anyone else was fit to do the same. I have read his poems, far more than the ones in the SSA, not only his poems, I read his essays too and although he does clings to a certain style and there are clichés (and those clichés appear in the poetry of masters like Frost and Plath), I´ve read far worse, and from people that have proclaimed themselves poets and have published work.

Besides, you yourself said it, poetry is a very personal type of art. Rhyno´s poems pertain to situations in his life. And, if we don´t want to read what he writes, ignore the link.

And my last post had nothing to do with you personal assesment of Rhyno´s poetry. You, Luna Amore, read through his poetry. Did any of the other people criticizing the aforementioned poem read the other poems to form a general idea of his style? It seems to me they didn´t, and clung like leeches to the one poem he provided a link to.

You could give constructive criticism, you, but I don´t think anyone else was fit to do the same. I have read his poems, far more than the ones in the SSA, not only his poems, I read his essays too and although he does clings to a certain style and there are clichés (and those clichés appear in the poetry of masters like Frost and Plath), I´ve read far worse, and from people that have proclaimed themselves poets and have published work.

Besides, you yourself said it, poetry is a very personal type of art. Rhyno´s poems pertain to situations in his life. And, if we don´t want to read what he writes, ignore the link.Well said and points taken.

Screw you. As an actor, screw you. You have no idea what it's like to be an artist, and have no right to judge us. A world with no art would be a world with no means to handle its pain.

A lot of so called art is garbage, and over paid. Real art is rare, valuable, and often underpaid.

Millions of Dollars for anyone seems unfair, perhaps. But if there getting the same proportional to the value of their work, and pay somewhat higher taxes (since they can afford it and still be rich), then who cares?

Well I gotta ask, where along the line of modern society did we decide to pay entertainment millions of dollars over the thousands we pay productive members of society.

I mean who decided that someone who acts for his life should be allowed the better life over those who work and build for their lives? Hell an actor gets paid more with a single movie then the president gets in a year...I just have to ask what the hell were people thinking when they decided that.

So I could sit back, paint random crap and claim its a deep insightful meaning of life and just get paid to BS people like that while someone goes out builds a buisiness and produced a resource to the people and he gets paids yearly what I get paid just from selling that picture.

So I must say, fuck the arts...why should people who devote their lifes to the arts benifit more from it then those of us who chose to better society over entertain it, it even seems now-a-days entertainment has been a primary reason many people I know seem to have gotten stupid (Thank you MTV)

So anyone got a reason I should change my position...cause im not seeing any benifit from paying entertainers more then workers.

The free market should decide this. And you should stop whining... our presidents would do us a great service if they were to spend 4-8 years doing absolutely nothing but vetoing everything congress tries to do.

How dare you, you do not know the first thing about art and have no say in it, I have been an artist all my life and enjoy the work I have done because of the happiness it brings to people and to my family. Art has the power to move people and even a pea-brain person like yourself should know that. Its a great felling to be an artist. To have that much power to move people, you don't even know the half of it. Well if there should be no more art then their should be no more sports or music. "Art" is a subject that EVERYONE is in to, from rap to hiphop to jazz, art is everywere. With out art their would be no videogames, books. America would not even have a national anthem. Their would be no "God Bless America". Remember, think about what art affects before you write another topic.

How dare you, you do not know the first thing about art and have no say in it, I have been an artist all my life and enjoy the work I have done because of the happiness it brings to people and to my family. Art has the power to move people and even a pea-brain person like yourself should know that. Its a great felling to be an artist. To have that much power to move people, you don't even know the half of it. Well if there should be no more art then their should be no more sports or music. "Art" is a subject that EVERYONE is in to, from rap to hiphop to jazz, art is everywere. With out art their would be no videogames, books. America would not even have a national anthem. Their would be no "God Bless America". Remember, think about what art affects before you write another topic.

Nanatsu no Tsuki OMFG!!!

Those were beauitful poems,I going through what those poems describe and that just put it into a emotion. Very good work!

And Rain in Summer is very good. How did you guys learn to write poetry? Anybody teach you?Or did you just learn on your own? I like to think I can write. But its mostly that "emo shit" as Rhyno put it. Some(a tiny?) could be alright those....

Can anybody join the SAA? Or should I just bugger off? :(:p

Well, it depends on how you define "entertainer" and "artist". Art is a very broad term, and therefore so is "artist". An actor is essentially an "artist".

Films qualify for government funding where I come from.

That's as may be, but the OP was vague, unfocused ranting at best and childish whining without relevance or point at worst.

Nanatsu no Tsuki OMFG!!!

Those were beauitful poems,I going through what those poems describe and that just put it into a emotion. Very good work!

And Rain in Summer is very good. How did you guys learn to write poetry? Anybody teach you?Or did you just learn on your own? I like to think I can write. But its mostly that "emo shit" as Rhyno put it. Some(a tiny?) could be alright those....

Can anybody join the SAA? Or should I just bugger off? :(:p

Thanks for the kudos.

As Luna Amore posted, poetry is a very personal kind of art. And neither Rhyno nor me are expert writers. All I can say is practice. Some people are good at it, some people suck. I don´t know what to say. I don´t like to talk too much about my poems and rants, but if you liked them, that´s cool.

As for joining the SSA, Rhyno TGed you the details. He has more info. than me.;)

Hello everyone - my first post.

have not read all of the posts yet but this caught my eye and I had to Reply
as a struggling artist myself I really do understand a great deal of frustration over the subject.
I am struggling through personal issues to break into some form of commercial illustrative art.
I do understand the quandary about spending a tone of cash on actors and people who glue tin cans together.
but even though even though the every day graphics studio employee can make a decent living - getting to a position where an artist can make a secure living is very difficult.
everyone wants art but know one wants to pay for it.
most people by their children or relatives the cheep mall brand art supplies and sometimes a decent piece of work comes out - so no one seems to think that artwork takes any effort.
the amount of training and discipline I had to undergo just to be taken seriously as an armature
was an enormous amount of blood sweat and tears.
so when an artist does have a chance at success they are going to demand a high price for it.
and most people do fail to see the value in it.
the arts are an expression of intuitive thought - that aspect of the human mind that marries reason with imagination.
it doesn’t depend on logic or rationality but does have to conform to some guide line or rules.
it is creative thought that produces solutions
and that’s also what I believe most people find entertaining.
in film it gives us a debate about our selves our course of actions our hopes and hour fears
in painting a sense of esthetic
in music expression and passion
all are forms of propaganda.
but to a point i also agree that government funding for someone who glues urinals to a wall or photographs a crucifix in a cup full of urine is a great waste of tax payers money.
and that various commercial industries do focus garbage at young impressionable minds and con them into consuming waste.
that is why a good arts program in schools is important.

Why cant the arts industry support itself. Why cant they raise their own money for people wishing to see the art. If there is a demand the public will pay for it.

Why should we complicate a non essential service by maintaining a large amount of funding. It could be spent on eduation or law or anything else that truly serves the public. I have used hospitals, school and police as it was needed. I have never seen a painting because it was needed.

Why cant the arts industry support itself. Why cant they raise their own money for people wishing to see the art. If there is a demand the public will pay for it.

Why should we complicate a non essential service by maintaining a large amount of funding. It could be spent on eduation or law or anything else that truly serves the public. I have used hospitals, school and police as it was needed. I have never seen a painting because it was needed.

Kiddo, your post is proof positive of the dire situation our school system is in...

Shenanigans.

Haha.

Hahaha.

Ha.

It's "shenanigans" because you can't handle I think your poetry is poorly written?

Despite the fact that i missed one letter in the word education it is school itself that turned me off the arts. Every review of any type of art had to be positive. It is very possible for art to be shit. But one of the assesment criteria was "an appreciation". However the most secret one was "a left wing bias".

This being said I have never heard of a good excuse why the art industry can should not support itself. If you cant get a job as an artist try something different. If you are still keen to be artistic at times do it as a hobbie not an occupation.

Supply and demand. People Demand good entertainers.

I know I demand good entertainers, but my demands, so far, appear to be unanswered.

Every review of any type of art had to be positive. It is very possible for art to be shit. But one of the assesment criteria was "an appreciation". However the most secret ! one was "a left wing bias".

I agreed with you up until the point demarked by the large exclamation point.
Yes. Exactly there.

When there are people who are starving and suffering in our world? How can we justify giving anyone millions of dollars in salary when people die of diseases that could be cured for a few dollars and babies cry out in hunger?

Something to think about ...

I don't have a problem with artists making money from their work ... and I think the ones making millions of dollars are in of themselves a social commentary on the society in which you live and a reflection of the current values there.

It is a pity that those who are on the vanguard and cutting edge of art typically are never able to generate a livelihood from their craft, but they are the ones who will be remembered ...

It sounds that you are somewhat resentful of commercially successful artists, which I have less of a problem with then your criticism of what you refer to as emo based poetry written by those who bemoan their life in the ghetto ...

Well not having read their poetry, I will say this much, even if it is not moving or art to you, for them it maybe therapeutic and play a role that allows them to get out of their circumstances. And many people do find poetry and art about challenges in life inspiring, uplifting, and soul stirring.

It seems like you are really bemoaning your reality as a member of middle class america ... you resent the rich and those who have had bigger challenges then you ... maybe you could write a poem about that ... it would probably be better then some of the others I read.

BTW you are not a terrible writer like some would say ... some of the verses in your work are fairly clever, but I would suggest you tighten up some of the weaker verses and lines ...

BTW - most painters don't make $500,000 on selling a painting ever, and even those who usually do are long since dead.

For those who are so eagerly judging the quality of someone art. Just think about why the work of a typical middle class American's worth so much less than this "garbage" from certain artists. Maybe that this "garbage" isn't something everyone can produce and it takes more than just a weekend hobby to make it happen. Certainly I don't mean it's necessary the quality of the art itself, but at least they are light years ahead in terms of marketing their products through exhibitions and networking. Living in a capitalist society you don't judge a businessman or a salesperson for doing the same, so why judge an artist differently? Isn't this society all about rewarding those with good business sense?

As for the other artists? They can barely struggle by with their day to day lives.

The OP must be being deliberately blind. it's simple supply and demand. In our capitalist society, certain people get paid big money as they can bring in big money. Sports stars, CEOs, Big name entertainers, they bring in more money then the wage they are being paid.

What I do find funny is the arrogance of "real artists". I personally think Paris Hilton is rubbish, Adam Sandler films are rubbish, and many of that ilk are rubbish ,but I don't look down at those who watch them. I don't look down at those who watch sport, baywatch, whatever. if it works for them, entertains them and makes them happy, so be it.

If the "real" arts were so great, then more people would look at them. Even funnier are those "real" artists, that as soon as a certain style of art becomes popular, looks down at the commoners again. The kind of person who snubs their nose at the plebs who got to the Grand Hermitage or the Louvre as they are looking at the art ,but "not seeing, not feeling" the art.

Is Colonel's Chicken (http://z8.invisionfree.com/SSA05/index.php?showtopic=768) more suited to your taste?

It's not overly emotive or pretentious, and I'm fairly certain it's not cliche. But it is meaningless. Sorry.
It's god-awful.

Oh the "insantity" of writing about chicken! Oh I never would have thought it!

If anyone tells you it's good, they're just lying to bed you tbqh.

(sorry, just being honest)

There's 100x more businessmen, lawyers, scientists, contractors, etc who make millions than there is anyone who works in the field of the arts. Most artists never see a six figure salary. Those that do only make it that far because tens of millions chose to go out and buy their book or watch their movie. Once they've made it that far they've shown to producers that they are capable of making the studio money, because people will go see a new movie just because that particular actor is in it. Now the actor is a commodity, a valuable resource, much like oil or wood, and that resource comes with a cost for the studio who wants to use it. So yes, when we get that high up the ladder us actors demand a high cost, and we damn well should get a million bucks since we just made the studio 300 million dollars with a 210 million profit. Don't blame the artist for that. Blame the people who come out and see our performances. They're the ones who decide our paycheck.

As for the importance of the arts; humans are not robots. We liked to be moved, and we find that a really great movie does that for us more than hearing about a business deal that landed some guy 50mil.

It's god-awful.

Oh the "insantity" of writing about chicken! Oh I never would have thought it!

If anyone tells you it's good, they're just lying to bed you tbqh.

(sorry, just being honest)

Do you think that poem was written for any serious intention?

Do you think I would call a poem, say, like this one (http://z8.invisionfree.com/SSA05/index.php?showtopic=753), a good poem? Or would I see the intentions behind it all?

Yootopia, you seem like a smart NSGer. I don't think even Rhyno would consider the Colonel Chicken poems good. Satire's quite visible there.;)

Do you think that poem was written for any serious intention?

Do you think I would call a poem, say, like this one (http://z8.invisionfree.com/SSA05/index.php?showtopic=753), a good poem? Or would I see the intentions behind it all?

Yootopia, you seem like a smart NSGer. I don't think even Rhyno would consider the Colonel Chicken poems good. Satire's quite visible there.;)
Aye sorry... exam stress :(

Aye sorry... exam stress :(

Exam stress? Take a deep breath and start killing random people. It always worked for me.:p

as a struggling artist I would have hoped a struggling artist could make a post that looked a bit more aesthetically pleasing. Appropriate capitalization would do much to improve it, as would proper grouping of sentences (rather than putting a newline after each, and sometimes add a few in inexplicably random places) .

the amount of training and discipline I had to undergo just to be taken seriously as an armature

ar·ma·ture

4. Sculpture. a skeletal framework built as a support on which a clay, wax, or plaster figure is constructed.How plastered were you when you wrote that? ;)


Oh, nevermind; not like anyone gives a crap about either spelling, intelligibility or aesthetics these days. I'm probably terribly unkind for criticizing form over content.

I would have hoped a struggling artist could make a post that looked a bit more aesthetically pleasing. Appropriate capitalization would do much to improve it, as would proper grouping of sentences (rather than putting a newline after each, and sometimes add a few in inexplicably random places) .


How plastered were you when you wrote that? ;)


Oh, nevermind; not like anyone gives a crap about either spelling, intelligibility or aesthetics these days. I'm probably terribly unkind for criticizing form over content.

Oh, don't worry. I thought the same as you did and I even went so far as to correct the entire post, from top to bottom. I'm glad Jolt was giving me grief last night, so it didn't went through. Otherwise, it would've come as very mean and this was, after all, Maboran's first post.

...it is school itself that turned me off the arts. Every review of any type of art had to be positive. It is very possible for art to be shit. But one of the assesment criteria was "an appreciation". However the most secret one was "a left wing bias".
because critics don’t put their heart and sole on the line.
it is a very personal thing and for some one to rip a budding artist a new one is to tell them they have no room for improvement they will never get better and any goal or dream is unattainable.
it take time and effort - a begging artist has to learn confidence before anything else.


When there are people who are starving and suffering in our world? How can we justify giving anyone millions of dollars in salary when people die of diseases that could be cured for a few dollars and babies cry out in hunger?

and how much money will those people get if an artist has to leave his home land in order to become famous, his adopted home land will reap the benefits of his fame.
New York City makes it’s money on the talented dispossessed because of that philosophy.



Just think about why the work of a typical middle class American's worth so much less than this "garbage" from certain artists. Maybe that this "garbage" isn't something everyone can produce and it takes more than just a weekend hobby to make it happen. Certainly I don't mean it's necessary the quality of the art itself, but at least they are light years ahead in terms of marketing their products through exhibitions and networking. Living in a capitalist society you don't judge a businessman or a salesperson for doing the same, so why judge an artist differently? Isn't this society all about rewarding those with good business sense?

As for the other artists? They can barely struggle by with their day to day lives.
I agree, but that is a tough call to make - isn’t that the point of the judgment - isn’t the big complaint about the commercial market is the consumer being force fed garbage and the market saying in it’s defense no sense complaining about the quality of the air when there is nothing else to breath.
most artists call it selling out, yes it takes money and resources but at the same time quality is sacrificed for production rate.
but at the same time the Renaissance artists were commercial - it was a business,
often a master artist had apprentices to do the work - but under the masters direction.
I think the issue is, if you sacrifice quality for production value is it something we really want to embrace, because it does reflect on our personal lives, and if an artist does have the time and resources to create something more but takes an easier rout - is that artist being true to his craft or just out for a buck ?
is the artwork for the money - or is the money for the art.

Oh, don't worry. I thought the same as you did and I even went so far as to correct the entire post, from top to bottom. I'm glad Jolt was giving me grief last night, so it didn't went through. Otherwise, it would've come as very mean and this was, after all, Maboran's first post.

Actually I should apologize for that.
I suffered cerebral hemorrhage 3 years ago that effected that part of the brain.
I have to remind myself to use spell check and watch my grammar.
it doesn't always happen but the synapses are still healing and so I forget and space it sometimes.

Why cant the arts industry support itself. Why cant they raise their own money for people wishing to see the art. If there is a demand the public will pay for it.

You might argue that value of entertainment can be reasonably extrapolated from how much the market is willing to pay but the same can not be argued for art.

Despite the fact that i missed one letter in the word education it is school itself that turned me off the arts. Every review of any type of art had to be positive. It is very possible for art to be shit. But one of the assesment criteria was "an appreciation". However the most secret one was "a left wing bias".


Because they want to expose you to great art.

If the "real" arts were so great, then more people would look at them.

A lot of people are stupid and ignorant and shallow. Their opinion isn't so hot.

Oh, nevermind; not like anyone gives a crap about either spelling, intelligibility or aesthetics these days. I'm probably terribly unkind for criticizing form over content.

Not at all. You were spot on target.

Actually I should apologize for that.
I suffered cerebral hemorrhage 3 years ago that effected that part of the brain.
I have to remind myself to use spell check and watch my grammar.
it doesn't always happen but the synapses are still healing and so I forget and space it sometimes.

As I said, I´m glad that post of mine didn´t go through. It would´ve turned out to be very mean, and lets face it, we all commit grammar atrocities and I don´t like coming across as a total bitch, or not at first instance. Hope you get better soon.;)

so because an aritist wants to show his work that he cant get people to see on his own he should be subsidized.

Because there is not enough demand it should be artificially generated? I except art if it is to promote tourism. But when someone wants to use tax dollars for a bit of work that is far less important then numberous other government departments I believe it is wrong.

Surely there are many other great uses of the tax dollars that could be spent on the entire public or for thoes in need. But I guess someone taking photos or painting a new body is far more valuable in some peoples eyes. It wouldnt be better to spend money on our schools to teach the topic there would it? Instead its a better idea to repeat a type of art work that have been done thousands of times before. Yes the trees may be different. The picture may be lighter or darker but the theme has already been done before. Being looked at by a bunch of rich people wanting to be in touch of their emotions is truely the goal.

I find entertainment in the fact that this art-hating (or loving) debate is occurring on a forum that was built around a game paid for (in whole or part) and inspired by (in whole or part) a writers (Max Barry) works of "art" or "entertainment".

And I didn't even have to pay a dime for it. I just stuck it to the system.

Its also dually amusing that the greater portion of this game is roleplaying. Which is arguably both art and entertainment. That nobody is being paid for (that I know of).

However for my input on this whole debate, I default to science.
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
So for every piece of art (or entertainment) you like, there must be a piece of art (or entertainment) you do not like.
For every person who doesn't like a piece of art (or entertainment), there must be a person who does like that piece of art (or entertainment).
For every artist or entertainer making it rich, these must be an artist or entertainer failing to make it.

I could grab a piece of canvas and scribble on it madly with a yellow crayon, and then sit by it on a busy city street. 10,000 people may walk by and 9,999 might think it is just scribbling on a canvas - but that 1 person who truly is inspired by my scribbling may just want to buy it. And who am I to deny them if they found meaning in it?

The same goes for entertainment as much as it does for art. Of everyone I know, I am the only one who actually enjoys mimes. Go figure.

I've always seen myself as an amateur writer at best, but I've run into people who sincerely hail my writing as good - great - grand. I've even been urged to attempt to publish some things I write, or write something to be published.
I didn't, obviously, but that doesn't mean either myself or the persons who like my writing (or those I have encountered who have hated it) have been wrong.

To each their own. Nobody is forcing you to read, watch, listen, consume, interact or breath anything. If they are, seek legal counsel immediately.

That law governs physics and nothing else. But as for this game being between entertainment and art I would say it may be them but it is also something else. Its a business. I see addspace around. Im sure that gives the funds to keep this game going

This art / entertainment / business is fine as far as im concerned. Because as far as I know it is not taking money from some nations taxes to run. Its just a succesful business with an artistic / entertainment theme of politics

Well I gotta ask, where along the line of modern society did we decide to pay entertainment millions of dollars over the thousands we pay productive members of society.

I mean who decided that someone who acts for his life should be allowed the better life over those who work and build for their lives? Hell an actor gets paid more with a single movie then the president gets in a year...I just have to ask what the hell were people thinking when they decided that.

So I could sit back, paint random crap and claim its a deep insightful meaning of life and just get paid to BS people like that while someone goes out builds a buisiness and produced a resource to the people and he gets paids yearly what I get paid just from selling that picture.

So I must say, fuck the arts...why should people who devote their lifes to the arts benifit more from it then those of us who chose to better society over entertain it, it even seems now-a-days entertainment has been a primary reason many people I know seem to have gotten stupid (Thank you MTV)

So anyone got a reason I should change my position...cause im not seeing any benifit from paying entertainers more then workers.

You seem to have a very skewed view of the arts.

Most of us do not get paid well at all. Haven't you heard the term "starving artist" or "starving musician"? Well, for the vast majority of us, those terms are accurate. The people getting paid a lot on TV are the very few, and most serious artists/musicians/etc. would be a little insulted at getting mentioned in the same sentence as the mind-numbing crap of MTV, if I guess correctly, which, knowing quite a few, I think I do.

Art and music are as old as civilization, or older. Just about very culture has had both. Art is one of the main indicators of homo sapien intelligence.

Why pay CEO's and other people who do relatively little work aside from pushing money around hundreds of times what people who work their asses off?

Also, most artists and musicians ARE what you would call workers. You think creating art makes enough money to feed us, clothe us, and put a roof over our heads? If you do, you must be unfathomably stupid or naive. I don't think that's the case, but I do think that either you are trollin' or you just carelessly forgot to think before posting.

You might argue that value of entertainment can be reasonably extrapolated from how much the market is willing to pay but the same can not be argued for art.
An interesting point. Care to say why, instead of just throwing it out there.

A lot of people are stupid and ignorant and shallow. Their opinion isn't so hot.
Is this a case of performance art. Displaying unintentional irony? You are the perfect example of the arrogant art lover.
More people get a sense of near religious wonder from their country winning the soccer world cup, than will ever get the feeling from looking at a piece of art. Accept this truth.
"Great" art as well as the "great" music styles, such as symphony orchestras, are no longer popular like they once were. They are kept alive by people who want to feel better than the plebs, by their knowledge and appreciation of this higher art.

Should anyone be paid obscenely?

I for one wouldn't want to be paid any other way.

You seem to have a very skewed view of the arts.

Most of us do not get paid well at all. Haven't you heard the term "starving artist" or "starving musician"? Well, for the vast majority of us, those terms are accurate. The people getting paid a lot on TV are the very few, and most serious artists/musicians/etc. would be a little insulted at getting mentioned in the same sentence as the mind-numbing crap of MTV, if I guess correctly, which, knowing quite a few, I think I do.

Art and music are as old as civilization, or older. Just about very culture has had both. Art is one of the main indicators of homo sapien intelligence.

Why pay CEO's and other people who do relatively little work aside from pushing money around hundreds of times what people who work their asses off?

Also, most artists and musicians ARE what you would call workers. You think creating art makes enough money to feed us, clothe us, and put a roof over our heads? If you do, you must be unfathomably stupid or naive. I don't think that's the case, but I do think that either you are trollin' or you just carelessly forgot to think before posting.

Q to tha F to tha muthafukkin' T.

I for one wouldn't want to be paid any other way.

you might if you were the one not making the big dollars ... what is no one could make more than a million dollars a year and anything in excess of that was pooled to make the world better and provide opportunities for others? or to help the environment? or to support arts and culture and enrich people's lives ...

An interesting point. Care to say why, instead of just throwing it out there.

When you're deciding if The Seventh Seal is great art, you don't consult the box office figures because success in art isn't the same as success in business. The Titanic was a success in terms of business but one wouldn't say that it was much better art than The Seventh Seal based on that.

Is this a case of performance art. Displaying unintentional irony? You are the perfect example of the arrogant art lover.
More people get a sense of near religious wonder from their country winning the soccer world cup, than will ever get the feeling from looking at a piece of art. Accept this truth.

I accept that truth. But I don't think that means I'm wrong. In fact, the whole point of the post you're replying to is that "their opinion isn't so hot". The quantity of people holding a view doesn't influence the quality of that view. It's not arrogant to think that I'm smarter and better informed than the average person if I indeed am. And I am.

"Great" art as well as the "great" music styles, such as symphony orchestras, are no longer popular like they once were. They are kept alive by people who want to feel better than the plebs, by their knowledge and appreciation of this higher art.

Or it could be that they are kept alive by people who genuinely like them.

When you're deciding if The Seventh Seal is great art, you don't consult the box office figures because success in art isn't the same as success in business. Titanic was a success in terms of business but one wouldn't say that it was much better art than The Seventh Seal based on that. *snip*

Good point. Specifically, see 1958's A Night to Remember and tell me that compares artistically in ANY way to James Cameron's 1997 gaudy showpiece with regard to the story of Titanic.

you might if you were the one not making the big dollars ...

I am.

what is no one could make more than a million dollars a year and anything in excess of that was pooled to make the world better and provide opportunities for others? or to help the environment? or to support arts and culture and enrich people's lives ...

Yes yes, that's called a communistic or command economy in which the government - what you seem to naively believe will 'make the world better' - has nearly total relative power and wealth to the people. With that much power all centralized like that, it ends up bad.

Do you think that poem was written for any serious intention?

Do you think I would call a poem, say, like this one (http://z8.invisionfree.com/SSA05/index.php?showtopic=753), a good poem? Or would I see the intentions behind it all?

Yootopia, you seem like a smart NSGer. I don't think even Rhyno would consider the Colonel Chicken poems good. Satire's quite visible there.;)

I wouldn't say it's bad. I also wouldn't say it's scholarly.

So. Someone point out to me exactly where I said I didn't like trite, overly emotional poetry, since several people have cited that as the basis of an apparent contradiction between my tastes and my talent.

RhynoDD;13785699']I wouldn't say it's bad. I also wouldn't say it's scholarly.

So. Someone point out to me exactly where I said I didn't like trite, overly emotional poetry, since several people have cited that as the basis of an apparent contradiction between my tastes and my talent.

I never said it was bad or scholarly. It´s a satire.

As for your talent? I have never doubted it.

RhynoDD;13785699']So. Someone point out to me exactly where I said I didn't like trite, overly emotional poetry, since several people have cited that as the basis of an apparent contradiction between my tastes and my talent.

Nope. I'm a poet (http://z8.invisionfree.com/SSA05/index.php?showforum=19), and I'm tired of listening to people's badly-written emo poetry, and more tired of being criticized for calling it badly-written.
I believe that post started the whole business. Granted, you didn't say the word 'trite,' but I tend to think of badly written poetry as being trite more often than not.

Out of curiosity, are you implying you like trite, overly emotional poetry?

I believe that post started the whole business. Granted, you didn't say the word 'trite,' but I tend to think of badly written poetry as being trite more often than not.

Not all bad poetry is bad because it is trite. Nor is all trite poetry bad, although I can certainly understand a distaste for it.

Out of curiosity, are you implying you like trite, overly emotional poetry?

No, I just don't understand why so many people seem to think that they've caught me in some kind of contradiction: they say my poetry is trite, and that I said I don't like trite poetry, so I should therefore dislike my own poetry. However, I never said I don't like trite poetry, I said I dislike badly-written poetry, for all the reasons that it is badly written, which may or may not include being trite.

I do, though, like some trite, overly emotional poetry, if it happens to be well-written.

In any case, I would like to think that my poetry isn't trite, so much as reflective of older styles of poetry. Which, by the way, is intentional. I think modern poetry is crap, so writing in older styles is my small, personal rebellion against modern poetry. Robert Frost was the same way, incidentally, and he also happens to be my favorite poet.

Out of curiosity, as a lyrical wanker, what constitutes badly written poetry?

Out of curiosity, as a lyrical wanker, what constitutes badly written poetry?

Oh, I don't know...
This (http://homepages.wmich.edu/~cooneys/poems/bad/Guest.Myself.html) one is pretty bad. Not god-awful, though.

And from what I glanced over of this (http://emo-poems.greatestjournal.com/) shyte, it's pretty bad. "You rawred at me"? Really? "Rawred"? Meh.

"The artist hating his audience" is kind of a tired trope and often a mask for the artist resenting the fact that he or she has failed to affectively communicate and blames everyone but themselves. "The audience are sheep" is the dirty step cousin to "you just don't understand my work."

I love my audience. 'Course I hate watching recordings of scenes that I'm in. Is that a tired trope yet?

Why cant the arts industry support itself. Why cant they raise their own money for people wishing to see the art. If there is a demand the public will pay for it.

Why should we complicate a non essential service by maintaining a large amount of funding. It could be spent on eduation or law or anything else that truly serves the public. I have used hospitals, school and police as it was needed. I have never seen a painting because it was needed.

Pick up a History book on the Great Depression. It'll learn you good. Or any book for that matter.

Also.

It could be spent on eduation or law or anything else that truly serves the public.

It could be spent on eduation

eduation

FAIL

The same goes for entertainment as much as it does for art. Of everyone I know, I am the only one who actually enjoys mimes. Go figure.

I secretly like mimes. I don't find them terribly interesting, but they work at what they do.

I've always seen myself as an amateur writer at best, but I've run into people who sincerely hail my writing as good - great - grand. I've even been urged to attempt to publish some things I write, or write something to be published.
I didn't, obviously, but that doesn't mean either myself or the persons who like my writing (or those I have encountered who have hated it) have been wrong.

To each their own. Nobody is forcing you to read, watch, listen, consume, interact or breath anything. If they are, seek legal counsel immediately.

Q.F.F.T.

Is this a case of performance art. Displaying unintentional irony? You are the perfect example of the arrogant art lover.
More people get a sense of near religious wonder from their country winning the soccer world cup, than will ever get the feeling from looking at a piece of art. Accept this truth.

I feel like both stimulate a different part. IMO good art stimulates either the soul, the mind, or both. For me sports and other athletic things tend to speak to a more primal/less intellectual part of my being. That said, it's a part of myself that I appreciate just as much. Both are part of my being, and both need to be shown love from time to time.

Out of curiosity, as a lyrical wanker, what constitutes badly written poetry?

Log on at 2
To NSG
A post for you
And a post for me

Abortion?
That's one I think I'll skip.
Slamming the Arts?
Let's take a trip!

Four pages?
Posts and posts galore
Sometimes I think LG's a whore.
The posting kind, I mean of course
He's not the kind at the docks with a horse.

And to the end I read and see
That it's time for my reply
But then I find I have to pee
Before I can even try.

Now I'm back
and it is three
I'm a hack
But I'm not me

And now I'll cut
'Till it bleeds away
Because I can't think
Of a thing to say.


There. That bad enough for ye's? I'm an actor, not a poet.

I've read worse.

RhynoDD;13787933']I've read worse.

Are you serious? Not only did I wing that, I think I changed rhyming schemes like every stanza or so.

I mean, Emily Dickinson did that too, but I'm not her.

'K, now I'm on a quest for the worst poetry ever. When I get back, one of you guys may have to be the Atticus Finch for my rabid dog.

Are you serious? Not only did I wing that, I think I changed rhyming schemes like every stanza or so.

I mean, Emily Dickinson did that too, but I'm not her.

'K, now I'm on a quest for the worst poetry ever. When I get back, one of you guys may have to be the Atticus Finch for my rabid dog.

You managed to rhyme, at least. My ex was worse, much worse.

RhynoDD;13787968']You managed to rhyme, at least. My ex was worse, much worse.

Considering poetry doesn't have to...Oh. My. God.

Did she try to rhyme and fail to do so? That's... that's... >_<

Considering poetry doesn't have to...Oh. My. God.

Did she try to rhyme and fail to do so? That's... that's... >_<

Usually she didn't bother. Mostly she was just too vague...it was like reading a (traditional) haiku that was 10 lines long and trying to figure out what it was about.

RhynoDD;13788020']Usually she didn't bother. Mostly she was just too vague...it was like reading a (traditional) haiku that was 10 lines long and trying to figure out what it was about.

I have a weird desire to read one of your ex´s poems or whatever they may have turned out to be. <.<

I have a weird desire to read one of your ex´s poems or whatever they may have turned out to be. <.<

She and Nev had a thread going back and forth where they like, wrote a poem or something with posts and crap. "Poetry in motion" or some such. Most of what I read was pretty crappy...Search around SSA...

RhynoDD;13788078']She and Nev had a thread going back and forth where they like, wrote a poem or something with posts and crap. "Poetry in motion" or some such. Most of what I read was pretty crappy...Search around SSA...

Will do.:p

EDIT: I read it... All I will say is that I´m in pain now. Horrendous. :eek:

Ah. Vogon poetry.

I think I found it!

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool.
They lay. They rotted. They turned
Around occasionally.
Bits of flesh dropped off them from
Time to time.
And sank into the pool's mire.
They also smelt a great deal.

I dunno..."You rawred at me" is still pretty bad...

Log on at 2
To NSG
A post for you
And a post for me

Abortion?
That's one I think I'll skip.
Slamming the Arts?
Let's take a trip!

Four pages?
Posts and posts galore
Sometimes I think LG's a whore.
The posting kind, I mean of course
He's not the kind at the docks with a horse.

And to the end I read and see
That it's time for my reply
But then I find I have to pee
Before I can even try.

Now I'm back
and it is three
I'm a hack
But I'm not me

And now I'll cut
'Till it bleeds away
Because I can't think
Of a thing to say.


There. That bad enough for ye's? I'm an actor, not a poet.

RhynoDD;13787414']Oh, I don't know...
This (http://homepages.wmich.edu/~cooneys/poems/bad/Guest.Myself.html) one is pretty bad. Not god-awful, though.

And from what I glanced over of this (http://emo-poems.greatestjournal.com/) shyte, it's pretty bad. "You rawred at me"? Really? "Rawred"? Meh.

Is it wrong that I find both of those a bit humorous?

Is it wrong that I find both of those a bit humorous?

Not at all. Just so long as you don't call them good. Unless it turns out they were supposed to be humorous in which case they would be good at being humorous.

Not at all. Just so long as you don't call them good. Unless it turns out they were supposed to be humorous in which case they would be good at being humorous.

I meant it to be silly, if that counts.

I meant it to be silly, if that counts.

Silly...humorous...semantics.

But I don't think Bakerj55 was being silly. Which means that while he may have succeeded in being humorous, he has failed at his intentions. Assuming he wasn't trying to be silly. He may have been. But I don't think so...

Silly...humorous...semantics.[quote]

You didn't actually have to answer that, you know.

[quote]But I don't think Bakerj55 was being silly. Which means that while he may have succeeded in being humorous, he has failed at his intentions. Assuming he wasn't trying to be silly. He may have been. But I don't think so...

Intentions aren't everything. Did the guy who first mixed peanut butter and chocolate really intend to find an awesome combination? Or did it happen by pure chance? I don't know, but does it matter in the end?

Not that I'm trying to defend the guy, but much like I love the sound of my own voice, I also love the look of the words I type. I would marry them if I could.

I think it's legal in Massachusetts.

You didn't actually have to answer that, you know.

Well, yes. Happy Birthday?

Intentions aren't everything. Did the guy who first mixed peanut butter and chocolate really intend to find an awesome combination? Or did it happen by pure chance? I don't know, but does it matter in the end?

True, but if he was trying to make a bio-fuel out of peanut oil and cocaine then I would say he's a horrible chemist. Not that he was, but you know... The point is I'm going to call Bakerj55 a crappy poet, though I wouldn't disagree that he may possibly be a decent satirist.

Not that I'm trying to defend the guy, but much like I love the sound of my own voice, I also love the look of the words I type. I would marry them if I could.

I think it's legal in Massachusetts.

Hmm...I'll have to look into that. Now where'd Erato get off to...?

Well, yes. Happy Birthday?

Close. Try again in a couple of weeks.

True, but if he was trying to make a bio-fuel out of peanut oil and cocaine then I would say he's a horrible chemist. Not that he was, but you know... The point is I'm going to call Bakerj55 a crappy poet, though I wouldn't disagree that he may possibly be a decent satirist.

Fair enough. Can't really argue with that one.

[quote]Hmm...I'll have to look into that. Now where'd Erato get off to...?

Hopefully we'll patch it into the rest of the U.S. servers sometime by 2012.

Close. Try again in a couple of weeks.

Early gift. I didn't save the receipt so if you don't like it, too bad...

Fair enough. Can't really argue with that one.

Hey, I win. I should get a trophy or something...

Hopefully we'll patch it into the rest of the U.S. servers sometime by 2012.

I wonder if they'll pass some laws so I can marry all four of the muse sonnets I intend to have written by then...

The entertainment industry: If you don't like the pay that actors receive, don't watch their shows. I haven't been to the theater very often because so much of cinema is tripe. 2008 is the first year in which I have been to more than 2 movies. Don't waste your life in front of the boob tube.

Music: Support local artists instead of the mass-produced megastudio garbage. Go see a chamber music concert. Visit a folk music festival. Vote with your wallet.

Paintings and sculpture: Protest government arts spending if you object to the crap foisted upon us as "public art". Otherwise, shut up. If some idiot with more money than brains wants to buy what looks like the drop cloths of a sloppy painter, let him. My art protest is limited to objecting to my tax dollars being spent on crap. Private purchases are none of our business.

Sports: I am a casual fan of Major League baseball. I don't get excited at all about other major league sports. Minor league and college games are more fun to watch anyway. Regarding salaries, if a player can draw a crowd, he deserves the pay. If you object, don't watch the sport.

Remember that the wealtiest are also often the most charitable. Athletes often support childrens hospitals and otherwise offer encouragement. While their causes are often wacky, the actors and actresses often support causes they feel are important.

Not at all. Just so long as you don't call them good. Unless it turns out they were supposed to be humorous in which case they would be good at being humorous.

Ok. Gotcha.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:KUFJfroObju1CM:http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_01_img0546.jpg > http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:h-Cq8KIA2ZpXiM:http://garlinggauge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/bush.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:KUFJfroObju1CM:http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_01_img0546.jpg > http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:h-Cq8KIA2ZpXiM:http://garlinggauge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/bush.jpg

Intriguing. Tell me more.

Intriguing. Tell me more.

I like Yojimbo better than Bush and Clinton.

Hell an actor gets paid more with a single movie then the president gets in a year...I just have to ask what the hell were people thinking when they decided that.

Hm.

I like Yojimbo better than Bush and Clinton.



Hm.

I see, I see. Do continue...

I like Yojimbo better than Bush and Clinton.



Hm.

For that matter, I'm pretty sure Yojimbo had more of a positive impact on society.

What's with the multitude of Rhynos? Something I missed?

What's with the multitude of Rhynos? Something I missed?

There was a memo. You probably didn't get it.

This Rhyno has a big hammer.

There was a memo. You probably didn't get it.

This Rhyno has a big hammer.

I never get the memos. :(
Also: You bastard. You can't have that in your sig!

"
people like baseball players, on the other hand, should be payed less. They don't speak to the soul, they play a kid's game and get millions for it."
Look at all the people who go to games.
That is lots of money and it is hard to get into the majors
It is many peoples dreams, so the ones who do it are going to get paid a lot.
Supply and demand fuel it.

I never get the memos. :(
Also: You bastard. You can't have that in your sig!

I can, will, and do.

It works better when you don't remind me.


Oh, and you should talk to the moderators about getting those memos.