Kharmine
New member
Boy, are you wired, Cathy! Must be good java 'cause they're good questions,
Um, hm.
1. If I understand the concept of anarchy right I don't know of any society that even got close to a successful model of it. First, I believe it assumes that people are basically good enough (or just smart enough) to govern themselves and run things without any kind of official governing authority.
:lol::lol::lol:
OK, maybe a small group of like-minded persons can do this. For lack of a better example, I'm gonna use that of a commune run by the members. When it starts to get bigger and admit more diverse people it invariably starts falling apart until it is decided that chores need to be assigned in some way, and rules for the smooth functioning of the group have to be decided on. Eventually when someone gets to be a problem, decisions have to be made on what to do with that individual.
Because not everyone wants the responsibility, or is not good at assuming it, control eventually falls into the hands of a few. That's the first step out of anarchy, as far as I can tell, and the reason why it doesn't seem to take hold in any large society.
2. A market is created whenever there is a desire for something and someone to meet that desire who will ask something in exchange for meeting that desire. That goes back pretty far, and I couldn't possibly guess at what period the idea of selling one's art for a living came to be.
3. All I know is that when art has the potential to stir people's emotions and change thinking, it becomes a Force To Be Reckoned With by people who want to have at least some control over others. I can't think of any government that doesn't want to control its people, so I can't think of any government that hasn't tried to control art, one way or another.
Culture is a different matter. I don't know if the original so-called Easter Island natives had a government, but they did have a culture. From what I've read, the people were way into creating those statues because their culture taught them doing so would bring them power and good fortune.
People being competitive by nature, those statues got bigger and bigger and their creation took more and more of folks' time until there was no more hunting and gathering and fishing, just a frenzied period of sculpting of humungous ugly heads. Which, apparently, helped to slide their civilization into near-extinction. (OK, this is a simplification, but it's close.)
Was all that obsessive creation art? It certainly had a claim on the people's emotions and thoughts. Maybe this was an instance when some government control would have been a good idea!
Anyway, does that explain my contention about the subversiveness of art?
Um, hm.
1. If I understand the concept of anarchy right I don't know of any society that even got close to a successful model of it. First, I believe it assumes that people are basically good enough (or just smart enough) to govern themselves and run things without any kind of official governing authority.
:lol::lol::lol:
OK, maybe a small group of like-minded persons can do this. For lack of a better example, I'm gonna use that of a commune run by the members. When it starts to get bigger and admit more diverse people it invariably starts falling apart until it is decided that chores need to be assigned in some way, and rules for the smooth functioning of the group have to be decided on. Eventually when someone gets to be a problem, decisions have to be made on what to do with that individual.
Because not everyone wants the responsibility, or is not good at assuming it, control eventually falls into the hands of a few. That's the first step out of anarchy, as far as I can tell, and the reason why it doesn't seem to take hold in any large society.
2. A market is created whenever there is a desire for something and someone to meet that desire who will ask something in exchange for meeting that desire. That goes back pretty far, and I couldn't possibly guess at what period the idea of selling one's art for a living came to be.
3. All I know is that when art has the potential to stir people's emotions and change thinking, it becomes a Force To Be Reckoned With by people who want to have at least some control over others. I can't think of any government that doesn't want to control its people, so I can't think of any government that hasn't tried to control art, one way or another.
Culture is a different matter. I don't know if the original so-called Easter Island natives had a government, but they did have a culture. From what I've read, the people were way into creating those statues because their culture taught them doing so would bring them power and good fortune.
People being competitive by nature, those statues got bigger and bigger and their creation took more and more of folks' time until there was no more hunting and gathering and fishing, just a frenzied period of sculpting of humungous ugly heads. Which, apparently, helped to slide their civilization into near-extinction. (OK, this is a simplification, but it's close.)
Was all that obsessive creation art? It certainly had a claim on the people's emotions and thoughts. Maybe this was an instance when some government control would have been a good idea!
Anyway, does that explain my contention about the subversiveness of art?