I heard asked once, in some book, "Would Raphael still be an artistic genius if he was born without hands?" And so I began thinking about the multitudes of impoverished people, who have to work hard to even eat everyday, and a wave of loss and despair swept over me as I thought of all the people who could have been great Painters, Writers and Musicians who had to work instead of creating, all these people who have been cornered into an existence as a Raphael without hands.
So why does socialism benefit the Artist? Why is Social juxtaposed in front of Aesthetic, betraying a knot between economic equality and aesthetic perfection, a knot that has been tied so tight by the forces of capitalism that no one can separate the two? Because an Artist does not always come from the fortunate souls who have been born into a priviledged existence, and because we have promised to fight for the welfare of all Artists and the glory of Art.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The Issues 1: Immigration
Just a couple of thoughts on immigration.
From the point of view of an Artist, is a person who comes into this country illegally to work and support a family "good" or "bad"? Or, in aesthetic terms, do they contribute to Beauty or do the only contribute ugliness?
First of all, look at their story. Their story is one of chasing a dream, and then achieving that dream. It involves the adventure of abandoning home, the excitement of a new country, and a certain noble illegality befitting of Robin Hood. Their story is, indeed, a Beautiful story. Their life is a piece of art.
Second of all, look how their culture adds to our own. In addition to a new set of words, they contribute an alternative social consciousness. This is the source of the cultural clash, of course, but having two cultural perspectives, two ways of looking at the world, is a definite plus to all Artists.
Third of all, even if they do not contribute to Art directly, a larger workforce can support a larger Artist class. So, even if you ignore the cultural contribution, the addition to the workforce is a benefit to all Artists.
Therefore, immigrants contribute to the welfare of Artists and the glory of Art.
From the point of view of an Artist, is a person who comes into this country illegally to work and support a family "good" or "bad"? Or, in aesthetic terms, do they contribute to Beauty or do the only contribute ugliness?
First of all, look at their story. Their story is one of chasing a dream, and then achieving that dream. It involves the adventure of abandoning home, the excitement of a new country, and a certain noble illegality befitting of Robin Hood. Their story is, indeed, a Beautiful story. Their life is a piece of art.
Second of all, look how their culture adds to our own. In addition to a new set of words, they contribute an alternative social consciousness. This is the source of the cultural clash, of course, but having two cultural perspectives, two ways of looking at the world, is a definite plus to all Artists.
Third of all, even if they do not contribute to Art directly, a larger workforce can support a larger Artist class. So, even if you ignore the cultural contribution, the addition to the workforce is a benefit to all Artists.
Therefore, immigrants contribute to the welfare of Artists and the glory of Art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)