The Most Interesting Person in the World

New Idea for My Blog

Posted on: January 24, 2010

Hi all!

I just had a very exciting night out with the girls.

Therefore, some points:

1. To explain the title. It sounds like just an ego talking. Initially, I imagined there would be room for a sub-title, which was meant to be something along the lines of, “Warning: Above Opinion May Be Biased.” When you think about it, anybody who writes a blog is writing it because they think that they are the most interesting person in the world. Why else would others want to know the details of their thrilling lives?

2. Today I found out how easy it can be for an athlete to get a start. If someone shows enough skill at hockey from a young age, a company will basically sponsor him to train 8 hours a day. My question is… Why don’t artists have that? When our civilization gets destroyed (and don’t be so arrogant to think it won’t), will people remember who our greatest athletes are? Do we remember who the greatest gladiators were? On the other hand, will they have records of some of our writers, artists, thinkers, and creatives? Is it better to simply assume those people will crop up here and there, no matter how often their souls get crushed in the quest for money – or what would it be like to have a civilization that fosters and encourages its artists, and supports those who dedicate their lives to it?

3. I could write on any topic. Even a topic I know nothing about. In fact, what I come up with might be more amusing the less I know about it. So here’s my explodingdog offer to you: In the Comments box, write me a word or a phrase or a mathematical concept; whatever. I will take my favourite and write about it.



4 Responses to "New Idea for My Blog"

2. Here’s my theory. With athletes, their speed or ability to reach definite, concrete goals (like winning a game, or jumping to a particular height) is measurable, and I’m sure at one point or another, you can wonder if you can achieve the same. It also helps that there is this macho ego thing that seems to be synonymous with sports. People look up to David Beckham and Alex Rodriguez as ultimate male role models. It’s very obvious to discern whom a lot of young boys look up to. And with that, there’s more money for athletes. Also, remember that sports often serve as entertainment.

It isn’t really as easy to do that with art. You either get certain artworks, or you don’t. As a result, it doesn’t attract an equally wide audience and really, it serves more or less as an acquired taste, I think. That said, grants are available to go to arts organizations and projects. You’ll have to do some research to figure out who offers them and how you can earn one.

3. The law of sines. GO!

That’s an interesting theory. It’s true that sports can be more objective than arts; but does that make them better? All humans are subjective, anyway. It’s only a matter of opinion that causes one person to value seeing one sports star succeed. Likewise, it’s another person’s opinion that a certain artist is worth commissioning for a large project. All it takes is for one person wealthy enough and dedicated enough to support another human being – whether in her volleyball career or her writing attempts or anything else. Back in the day there was a patronage system, and that’s how art was made.

The weird thing about grants is that they require so much bureaucracy, proven experience, and general hoop-jumping. I’m not saying this as an excuse for not pursuing it. I’m saying this from a bird’s-eye-view of our society and what the long-term results may be. In order for an artist to get funding through the grant system, he or she must spend days, weeks, maybe months putting together a proposal, one that is often in a different medium (written instead of performative, for example) and language (formal, third-person, in essay format of exactly x number of words) from what inspires the artist. In effect, that takes the person away from their art and towards the business of funding. Often people will take grant-writing courses, a cost not just of money and time, but artistic compromise, so that we see ourselves in terms of “what’s profitable” or “what will impress Mr. Ploni of the Government” rather than “what do I love to do” and “what do my friends and community members value.” In effect, whether attempting to jump through the corporate hoops of grants, or getting a day job to support themselves, artists are seen as worth less than bankers, as providing less “value” to society than cubicle dwellers, a frivolous nonsense that we all can do without. Insurance, on the other hand – now, that’s important.

But look around. Who wants to live in an ugly city without murals? Who can survive a week without tv or movies? Who doesn’t blast music whenever they’re upset, or needing inspiration, or driving? It’s a tyrannical system that can lead to a monopoly of arts, to a few billionaires in Hollywood and millions of broke actors across the continent.

You’re absolutely right. Sports generally have a bigger appeal, but no, it doesn’t make them better. It’s really easy to market sports to a wide audience, which is why there’s a lot more money in that industry. You do need a person who’d help fund you… the term “starving artist” wasn’t an accident.

P.S. About your last point: entertainment is more of a want than a need, but murals and arts absolutely retain a city’s vitality. Better yet, they build community. However, it is harder to quantify that in a dollar amount. I may have shown you this already, but I tried exploring this with this project here:

Why is is that sports have a bigger appeal, anyway? Yes, they’re macho, and they get out some of our aggression. Perhaps that’s necessary too – and so good that we have this alternative to, say, war, to get the testosterone out. Which is to say, I’d be very much more “Yay, sports!” if there was no war on top of it. *Le sigh*

I used to say the same thing about how arts are nice, but not necessary for survival. Then I spent a few years not being creative. I was depressed. I was unable to be a productive member of society. I was a drag to be around. I know lots of people also who are so buried in work, they don’t “have time” for culture or expression. Many of them, too, hate their lives, are often sick, feel worthless, spend tons of money on psychiatric help and/or medication, etc. It’s easy to say now that we couldn’t live without doctors but can live without artists, but that’s because we don’t live in that dystopia. If we really didn’t have any arts to take in or outlets to express ourselves, we would eat our doctor’s faces and cry ourselves to sleep and stop going to work and our world would really crumble down.

We tend to think that only things that make money are dire necessities. I don’t know how we decided, then, what products and services make money. Here are things that may not have a price tag attached to them, but being without these would make a society not worth living in, to the point that people would stop living:
-Religion (or at least some form of spirituality)
-Friendships and Community
-Lauren Stein

Okay, that last one, maybe some civilizations have still had fun without. But the rest I stand by. And there’s probably more.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: