Theories abound in all fields of art. Some are simple and some more complex. We have a variety of criteria, mostly exclusionary; we have no positive defining characteristics. Even the intent of the artist has little to do with whether his/her output is perceived as "artistic"; many works of art now widely considered to be masterpieces were simply commercial ventures, things created to please the purchaser. From "Mona Lisa" to Mozart, the intent of the artist was simply to earn a living. Battles have raged among differing groups, yet no group has found a standard that cannot be contravened.
It has occurred to me after thinking about this topic most of my adult life that the failure in the attempted definitions of art arises from thinking of art as a property belonging to the artistic creation. All definitions of which I am aware focus attention on the work of art itself, attempting to ascribe its value as an artistic work to the shape, form, color, sound or skill involved.
I propose that the definition of art be focused instead on the relationship between perceiver and creation. When the creation has the power to evoke strong feeling in the perceiver, even negative feeling, the artistic creation has done something of importance. Unfortunately, such a standard is transitory; things that were highly evocative at one time may lose their power to stimulate response. What moves us and touches us varies from century to century, place to place, person to person. Many if not most people in the world are totally oblivous to the possibility of being emotionally moved by a series of sounds or shapes on paper or the written word.
And some insist that only certain feelings may be evoked. However, this is a weak argument and many instances can be found to be exceptions. Do we consider being moved to anger or disgust to be an artistic experience? How about impatience or contempt or amusement? Another problem with this definition is that it is very culturally specific. A Frenchman may be moved to tears by the sounds of the "Marseillaise", while a Chinese may not even find the sounds particularly interesting. People of all cultures tend to favor certain emotional states over others: sadness, longing, loneliness, love, tenderness, excitement and the like are universal favorites. Other feelings may not even have names, yet their effect is real and understandable. Some art is majestic, overwhelming, even glorious or tragic, but what do we call the feeling that rises up in us when we encounter it?
Still, we should consider that we bring ourselves, our personalities and unique histories, to the artistic creation, with all our prejudices and biases, and in spite of that, we find some creations to have the power to move us quite irrespective of where or when we live in relationship to it. I think an interactive definition is as close as we can come.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Abolish Deficit Spending!
The current major fiscal collapse was largely triggered by the banks using a new formula which allowed them to loan money based on estimates of future inflated worth. Our government does essentially the same thing. In Oklahoma, for instance, the current budget can be based on estimates of next year's sales tax and income tax revenues!
The federal government's budget is not limited to expected government income. In this way we yearly spend money we do not have, which is the definition of deficit spending. They obligate future citizens to pay for it. How did we come to give the government permission to carry out such a foolish and dangerous policy? Isn't it obvious what a disaster is ahead of us? We got a taste of it when only the banks spent money they didn't have. What will happen when the entire economy is based on such inflated valuations AND THEY COME DUE?
Every year the mint prints more paper money, which is cleverly no longer based on a gold standard. Since there is no real formula equating (amount of paper money) to (gross national product), the value of a dollar bill is both arbitrary and decreasing. More money printed for the same value equals inflation, which is the decrease in value of each dollar bill. Such a decrease in value amounts to a hidden tax, costing each citizen the amount the dollar decreases in value due to inflation.
What if the government was prohibited from deficit spending? Our legislators would be limited in spending an amount based on last year's taxes, for instance. If some urgent project required more money than was in the budget, they would then have to do what all of us citizens have to do in such circumstances: get a loan OR raise their income. Getting a loan means to add a fixed repayment amount to subtract from next year's budget, just as all us citizens have to do. Raising their income would mean they would have to raise taxes for next year, and for that they should need a special vote from the general population of voters. We would have a direct say in what the government would be allowed to spend over its current income. If we said "No", they would have to abandon the project until such a time as it could be afforded. Just as we citizens have to do.
Our dollars would not be decreasing steadily in value. Our taxes would be clearly related directly to the things we as a people wanted our money spent on. Our government would be directly accountable for its fiscal behavior and would have to answer to us for what they spent. They probably won't want to do that. No, scratch the "probably".
I think we should demand that deficit spending be prohibited and that the government should live within its budget. I don't for ONE MOMENT believe that anyone in government will vote in congress assembled to limit their spending unless we force them to, and I don't really see how to do that. Any ideas?
The federal government's budget is not limited to expected government income. In this way we yearly spend money we do not have, which is the definition of deficit spending. They obligate future citizens to pay for it. How did we come to give the government permission to carry out such a foolish and dangerous policy? Isn't it obvious what a disaster is ahead of us? We got a taste of it when only the banks spent money they didn't have. What will happen when the entire economy is based on such inflated valuations AND THEY COME DUE?
Every year the mint prints more paper money, which is cleverly no longer based on a gold standard. Since there is no real formula equating (amount of paper money) to (gross national product), the value of a dollar bill is both arbitrary and decreasing. More money printed for the same value equals inflation, which is the decrease in value of each dollar bill. Such a decrease in value amounts to a hidden tax, costing each citizen the amount the dollar decreases in value due to inflation.
What if the government was prohibited from deficit spending? Our legislators would be limited in spending an amount based on last year's taxes, for instance. If some urgent project required more money than was in the budget, they would then have to do what all of us citizens have to do in such circumstances: get a loan OR raise their income. Getting a loan means to add a fixed repayment amount to subtract from next year's budget, just as all us citizens have to do. Raising their income would mean they would have to raise taxes for next year, and for that they should need a special vote from the general population of voters. We would have a direct say in what the government would be allowed to spend over its current income. If we said "No", they would have to abandon the project until such a time as it could be afforded. Just as we citizens have to do.
Our dollars would not be decreasing steadily in value. Our taxes would be clearly related directly to the things we as a people wanted our money spent on. Our government would be directly accountable for its fiscal behavior and would have to answer to us for what they spent. They probably won't want to do that. No, scratch the "probably".
I think we should demand that deficit spending be prohibited and that the government should live within its budget. I don't for ONE MOMENT believe that anyone in government will vote in congress assembled to limit their spending unless we force them to, and I don't really see how to do that. Any ideas?
Tying Votes to Taxes
If we had a true democracy (which I hope will not happen) we could study each issue, see how much it would cost us, and decide about its usefulness. That would be totally impractical, of course. Have you even seen what a bill going to the legislature looks like? Thousands of pages and study results. The Health Care bill is hugely complex; can the average citizen read and comprehend the implications of all that material? Probably not. Most of us (at least those who actually can read) would never take the time or put out the effort to understand such a bill, let alone the hundreds that have to be considered each year.
So we have representatives do that for us. Actually, they hire assistants who read the bills, make summaries, look at implications and alternative, and make recommendations, and even that is overwhelming. Without all that information, we really have no right to an opinion except in the broadest of terms. I doubt if ANY of the most vocal critics/advocates of the Health Bill have read it, but they talk about its contents as if they knew what they were.
All right, we have to trust our representatives to do our studying for us, see the problems and spend our money wisely. Our only alternative is to refuse to re-elect them, but that is always a long time after the fact. With the internet, is it possible to find at least somewhat of a middle ground? Could we get the summaries provided by the assistants to our representative, and not be allowed to vote on an issue on which we have not done our homework?
And what if we had attached to each issue its cost, so that we could literally put our money where our mouth is? Example: "Are heart transplant costs to be included in universal health care? (Estimated cost for each voter: $5.00) (Total money you have indicated willingness to spend this far: $752.03)"
This would obviously work better if we had a flat tax or national sales tax; graduated income taxes are hard to figure.
I get tired of hearing self-proclaimed liberals voting for items that they are unwilling to pay for. At a recent meeting, largely populated by such liberals, I asked how many were in favor of the Health Care Bill. Every hand went up. I asked them if they were willing to vote for an additional compulsory graduated tax for every citizen which would cover the costs of such a bill. Suddenly there was a silence, and only one or two hands went up.
Amazing how easy it is to be humanitarian and liberal when you don't have to think of the cost as coming from your own pocket. It's for that reason that I think that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote. No representation without taxation!
So we have representatives do that for us. Actually, they hire assistants who read the bills, make summaries, look at implications and alternative, and make recommendations, and even that is overwhelming. Without all that information, we really have no right to an opinion except in the broadest of terms. I doubt if ANY of the most vocal critics/advocates of the Health Bill have read it, but they talk about its contents as if they knew what they were.
All right, we have to trust our representatives to do our studying for us, see the problems and spend our money wisely. Our only alternative is to refuse to re-elect them, but that is always a long time after the fact. With the internet, is it possible to find at least somewhat of a middle ground? Could we get the summaries provided by the assistants to our representative, and not be allowed to vote on an issue on which we have not done our homework?
And what if we had attached to each issue its cost, so that we could literally put our money where our mouth is? Example: "Are heart transplant costs to be included in universal health care? (Estimated cost for each voter: $5.00) (Total money you have indicated willingness to spend this far: $752.03)"
This would obviously work better if we had a flat tax or national sales tax; graduated income taxes are hard to figure.
I get tired of hearing self-proclaimed liberals voting for items that they are unwilling to pay for. At a recent meeting, largely populated by such liberals, I asked how many were in favor of the Health Care Bill. Every hand went up. I asked them if they were willing to vote for an additional compulsory graduated tax for every citizen which would cover the costs of such a bill. Suddenly there was a silence, and only one or two hands went up.
Amazing how easy it is to be humanitarian and liberal when you don't have to think of the cost as coming from your own pocket. It's for that reason that I think that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote. No representation without taxation!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
