<p>In fact, I’d say the biggest artistic contribution to the average human from Japanese artists is anime</p>
<p>well first you would have to explain what the hell you are talking about.
You mean " hello kitty" type stuff that is popular with teens? teen agers are not exactly " average human"
thank god.
[Noh</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noh]Noh”>Noh - Wikipedia) for example
Just because the average barfly is not aware of the Asian influence in the arts- inc dance/music/theatre- et.al., does not mean it is insignificant.</p>
<p>“Well, I don’t see that we’ll be coining theatre into money but if you mean that, for enough money, the rights to anything can be made available, the chances of that are still slim when it comes to theatre. There’s a reason that that archival footage sits in a vault at Lincoln Center under strict controls. Actually, ticket sales for theatre, in NYC and other major theatre centres, have not had the kind of issues that some may have predicted with the current economic conditions. People still want to go to the theatre, just as they always do. The real problem is that the $$ isn’t available for new projects the way it has been in previous years. Currently running shows, however, are doing just fine. There is no comparison between viewing a show live and seeing a taped version on tv or dvd.”</p>
<p>It depends on the level of desparation. If your middle-class gets wiped out or we get into a civil war or someone in control becomes desparate enough, then you can get monetization. There’s a lot of stuff monetized today that sounds so absolutely bizarre out there already - I’ve learned to never say never.</p>
<p>“What a shame that we would accept “good enough” for the arts…but not for sports, or academics, or most anything else. Sorry…I don’t support this notion.”</p>
<p>mp3s are the dominant form of listening to music today and there’s usually a fair amount of data loss from the original. But it is good enough and allows you to carry your music library in your pocket and take it around the world if you wish. There are lots of people that pay small amounts of money to watch television shows and moves on a screen that fits in the palm of their hand. There are tens or maybe hundreds of millions that watch low-quality videos on YouTube.</p>
<p>“Live performances are amazing…and there is no question in my mind that they cannot be duplicated in the home…not at all.”</p>
<p>I’ve learned to never say never when it comes to technology.</p>
<p>We’re just starting out with brain-computer interfaces and biomedical devices that send signals to the brain to correct brain problems. We have robots that act incredibly like animals and humans. Consider taking a laptop back in time 200 years and try explaining how it works and what it does. We have exponential growth in knowledge in the areas where we choose to do research and development. I don’t like to put a cap on what can happen with that.</p>
<p>Some human experiences should not be reduced to technology. What a true pity, and loss of human emotion and experience. Anyone who believes that Ipod music listening is “art” is really missing out on the crux of what many of us here are trying to say.</p>
<p>“Some human experiences should not be reduced to technology.”</p>
<p>How about technology that allows one person to experience what another person feels?</p>
<p>“What a true pity, and loss of human emotion and experience. Anyone who believes that Ipod music listening is “art” is really missing out on the crux of what many of us here are trying to say.”</p>
<p>How about decoding how feelings work in the brain and then sending it over to another person?</p>
<p>BEEagle, what you describe could be dreamt up by a mathmetician, a scientist, OR an artist (or probably a team of all three). My point is that to be able to think this way you have to first recognize that divisions between math, science, and the arts are arbitrary (and thus trying to prioritize math over art, say, is very shortsighted). </p>
<p>One thing I’ve noticed is that it is near impossible to convince anyone of the value of art who is not already predisposed to it. There is some kind of mass resistance to it in this country, especially among the adults. Maybe that is why there is such a strong youth culture – they haven’t been inured to “thinking outside the box” yet.</p>
<p>Or an engineer. Tinkering. We do that you know. Hadamard wrote a little book on creativity in the 1930s or 1940s. It’s interesting that there are few if any polymaths today. In the past, you had experts in a variety of fields and these folks usually were good in multiple languages, arts, humanities, literature, etc.</p>
<p>We’ve grown up under a division of labor approach and there is far more specialization today than there was in the past. There is more regimentation in education too. Perhaps there are benefits to unschooling over schooling.</p>
<p>The idea of experiencing what someone else could experience is in the movie Total Recall and is probably a theme in other movies, television programs and books.</p>
<p>Yes, engineers too, definitely. A team consisting of a mathmetician, a scientist, an artist, and an engineer (walk into a bar, oh, never mind). </p>
<p>There are so many ways to “experience what some else could experience”, but that is an interesting way to describe the experience of art, music, film, literature. Remember Being John Malkovich? That was a weirdly literal version of this idea.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe the problem is that this kind of education kills curiosity. Another reason to not prioritize math over science over arts. Also, real learning is not specialized. The most effective way to teach something like math to children is not just through arithmetic, but to open up the field to cross fertilization. How can this happen if schools are thinking within that old paradigm of math/science first, art if there’s enough money?</p>
<p>mp3s are the dominant form of listening to music today and there’s usually a fair amount of data loss from the original. But it is good enough and allows you to carry your music library in your pocket and take it around the world if you wish. There are lots of people that pay small amounts of money to watch television shows and moves on a screen that fits in the palm of their hand. There are tens or maybe hundreds of millions that watch low-quality videos on YouTube.</p>
<p>I watch tv shows on my ipod yes.
But an analogy that I can relate to- a concert experience is like sex. a fantastic concert- is like great sex.</p>
<p>When I have bootlegs of that concert- it is reliving it. I can remember the sounds, the view, the people, the energy that comes from thousands ( or a couple hundred) sharing the experience - despite the 116 degree daytime temp, Gorge 06- with the sunset in the background- seeing Eddie climb up onto the sound shed just over a few seats from me-the whole weekend is burned into my conciousness.</p>
<p>When I listen to live bootlegs of concerts I haven’t attended, I still prefer them to studio in most cases, because of the energy between the audience and the performers.
To continue the analogy,is watching a projected image on a screen of two people having sex, the same as being an active participant?
um hardly.</p>
<p>Of course if you aren’t very auditory- its certainly possible that you just don’t get a lot out of a multi-sensory experience, and to you, you might as well watch a film in the comfort of your own home, rather than have to leave the house, make your way to the theatre-, after paying ticketmaster charges- which maybe came in a distant 2nd to airfare in order to experience a play or musical event.</p>
<p>Thats fine, what every floats your boat- but to virtually all cultures of any duration that I have ever heard of, have some type of musical/artistic/creative expression, even if they do not have a written language.</p>
That doesn’t make any sense. Humans <em>all</em> have musical/artistic/creative expression. Find me a culture that doesn’t!</p>
<p>The question of education is about creating the building blocks for a competitive economy. In a world of scarce resources something must be cut. Preferably art over reading/writing/arithmetic.</p>
<p>The cultural contributions of a society speak to its health and advancement. Look at history, back to the beginning to time, and we can see what pottery or wall art or friezes or story telling or songs tell us about a people.</p>
<p>There’s been quite a bit of research on the role of the arts in a creative economy. It’s been documented that the arts can help build 21st-century skills–especially critical thinking, creativity, and innovation. Most of the literature that I know about is written for the arts field; if you’re interested in browsing, check out another part of the Americans for the Arts website: [The</a> 2007 Americans for the Arts National Arts Policy Roundtable](<a href=“http://artsusa.org/information_services/research/policy_roundtable/default.asp]The”>http://artsusa.org/information_services/research/policy_roundtable/default.asp). The essays posted here are especially interesting.</p>
<p>Mr Payne: You’ve given the best reason yet for restoring arts education to public schools if you think that anime is Japan’s main contribution to creativity. You’re missing many, many centuries. Go to a museum with Asian art in its collection and you’ll find out.</p>
<p>The impact of art is hard to measure based on “consumption numbers.” Do you measure the impact of reading by the number of books sold? I don’t think so. You’re telling me that centuries of Japanese visual art–woodblock prints, blue and white porcelain, magnificent scrolls, amazing ceramics–are irrelevant because we don’t have consumption numbers? BTW, there are also plenty of studies documenting the economic impact of the arts on communities. Now I’m going offline for today–time to do something creative.</p>
<p>We may not all speak or read the same language…but we can all interpret what we see or hear visually, in a universal way. That may happen with math…I’m just saying…lol</p>