Wednesday, September 29, 2010

street art

From Schmidt & Weston blog

This past year I got myself into the middle of a nasty online debate over the definition of art. It started on my sister in law's facebook site... in fact it was done entirely on her facebook site. She claims it was very entertaining to read, but I still feel pretty guilty about that. The internet is no place for a rational debate about anything.

The whole affair started when person X decided to state that she felt government funding of the arts was offensive. By art, she of course meant the purchase of paintings and sculptures. I think it is an excellent idea to have the Man buy some art now and again, so I disagreed. I then pointed out, because I thought I was being clever, that art wasn't just the Ballet, Opera, paintings in galleries by 'established artists'. Someone, somewhere had to design even this font. A computer didn't form the letters from nothing.

She disagreed with my disagreement and then proceeded to tell me that I didn't understand, and my arguments were not valid because it wasn't relevant to her initial claim that art was a waste of tax payer's money.

I don't like it when my arguments are called invalid. It hurts my feeling (I only have the one right now).

Well, person X has a very limited idea of what art is. And she is wrong.

Art is important.

From Schmidt & Weston blog

Imagine a city with nothing on the walls but beige paint and everyone wearing the same shapeless jumpsuit living and working in ATCO trailers. That is what life with a government that does not value the arts looks like. Such places do exist; I have seen it myself.

1 comment:

  1. I didn't like that lady. She was really rude to me. And dismissive. And patronizing.



Thank you for visiting. I live in Vancouver now, but I've lived in other places too. I take photos and make short films about things and people. Please comment and be argumentative. It amuses me.

My main website is

other posts