What if all of the art in the world was destroyed?

What if all of the art in the world was destroyed?  Everything lost… gone are the paintings, the music, the sculptures, the films, the photos, the plays the dances… the collections gone.

What would that mean?  I sort of got on this idea on one of my daily, man vs. environment mind numbing sequences. Because of course, without a proper functioning environment it will be increasingly difficult to sustain human life… I realize some people don’t get that concept, and then I got thinking about art, and how art is one of those left wing commie pinko causes much like caring for the planet that sustains your life.  So what if Art just one day up and disappeared, we wake up and it’s all gone?  Dare I suggest this could actually be an interesting turn of events?  All of the artists out there would suddenly have a purpose… they could create things people need without having to worry about appearing to pay homage to one of the great artists that came before them… for a moment there would be no genres, and there might be a time, a brief period, where art might truly be appreciated.

When the forest is gone and there are no trees, and the only seeds left are mutant corn plants, and the soil has eroded into the sea, you won’t just be able to create a new forest, you will just be heat baked on barren land free of water and shade.  But if art was gone, it would give way to human ingenuity and a wild period of abundant creativity might exist… perhaps some would be put to work rehashing great works from memory, or is that even part of the scenario… I guess I need to define they hypothetical scenario… maybe you should just do that if you want to play the game in your own mind.

Now I don’t mean to suggest all the art ever made is meaningless, but more the idea on how rapidly artists of the world if given a chance could repopulate the world art supply, and I bet you they could do a damn good job.  I think art often falls prey to “human hype disorder”, as I call it, some believe that the classics are the classics and that’s all that matters, others believe that the latest is the greatest, some will only sip certain styles, others rue rubbish refusing to recognize it as art…  How bout a blank slate, an open filed… millions of artists lined up at the starting line and the pistol fires… what do you have for me tiger?  Probably wouldn’t be quite like that, but in some ways, despite the loss it might be not be the worst thing ever.

Imagine there was no music online or anywhere, how many new songs would be posted on day one, week one, and month one… one might create a major “art economy”, whatever the hell that means.  On paper it seems like one couldn’t create such a diverse filed, but it would be interesting to see the human art spirit react to a scenario like this.  I wonder what would really soar if people had nothing and then choices pouring in, how would entrepreneurs position themselves to help direct and divert the flow of this newfound art to the right places?  It would probably be smarter (human term synonymous with making more money) to not do art but invest in online art distribution.  Funny how even in a light hearted wondering exercise we teeter on the brink of talking about advertising.

Competition is a great motivator in art. I remember posting on the wall of the shockcenter “we are required by special pact to inspire each other with displays of productivity”.

I saw something a while back and I believe it was C.K. Louis talking about George Carlin, and how George taught him that every year he just comes up with new jokes rather than telling the same jokes over and over.  He started doing it, and clearly it worked for him, cause if what’s gone is gone then there is only the new beginning.

What about teaching Art?  Could you teach art if there was no Art? Perhaps it might be better to teach art… you could focus on teaching what you need to do rather than confuse the student with all of the history that came before.

If we had to re-create art is it possible that human priorities might change, teaching us something about losing things, leading to a more caring balanced society? 

just thinking

Perhaps it's not me who has a rage problem, but rather society that has a stupidity problem.

A new idea will firstly become denounced as being ridiculous

Secondly there are many fights against it

And finally all people were in favour of that from the early beginning

-Some guy explaining Arthur Schopenhauer in a film

You see I have always felt ridiculous, and even got confused with the "coolness" of being weird, and all of the gross intangibles in which that operation encompasses.  My mother always said I was very logical and over the years I have developed a major distrust of the establishment... all of it warranted I believe.

Basically, I do wish we could all get along and do the right thing for each other... live in harmony so to say, but that would be bad for business, and business is good for society, so we all innately know, and the most important thing is tax breaks and taking away things from other people that we don't have, and using force to make people think the way we think they ought to... Did I just go off the deep end?  I don't think I did actually, I think I'm calling it like it is actually.

We live in strange times, we are the generation, "they say" who's standard of living will be less than our parents...  I think one still has choices and the word "standard of living" is more than number on a graph.  For example, one's standard of not watching television and engaging in events with like minded community members that require physical and mental participation is something perhaps not seen on a graph.  I mean I don't want to get all positive and ruin a good rage, if you know what I mean... who knows what anybody means in this mosaic of regurgitated catchphrases... what does that mean? My point being is that some of the happiest people i know, and the funnest to be around, don't have a lot of money, and the wealthiest people i know, i can't say the same about.

Legions of registered voters want to kill science and let GOD show us the way as they drive air conditioned cars to church, perhaps never thinking about the feat of mechanical engineering that made it all possible.  It's like thinking in a vacuume... remember when the first people attempting flight were in bird suits... lets do a search... fucking killer check this:

This is awesome and shows the point... notice how the student of the pro has to leap off the platform while the pro shouts advise:

You see, it didn't work and it never will, and no prayer can ever make it.  Now I’m not saying prayer has no use at all... probably good for focusing and reminding one on what's important as they live out their day, or at least what they think is important.  The point being, it was science... recording what is, checking that data, and coming up with a new plan that made flight for humans possible.

(actually is should be noted that technology has now developed a suit where you can dive off a mountain top and glide down at top speed... just don't make a mistake)

When I was a kid I remember praying, but mostly I was trying to get something I didn't deserve, and since knelling closing my eyes and putting a few words out to some being it was believed could make or break your flow, was an easy few minute job, I felt the rewards could possibly be worth the minimal effort.

The argument is probably along the lines. For a prayer to work you need to mean it.  I actually believe that... but in my world it's more a matter of living life to a certain standard in how you treat people and how you do things, and why, and you will end up in a situation where you are blessed.  I imagine a wonderful religious person praying for happiness for all, and then greeting all with a sense of happiness and having that reciprocated back... warm happy people are fun to be around.

I love the fact that I have a video of a gullible sucker in a bird suit jumping off a platform and accelerating towards the ground at 9.81 m/s2  . The real problem is that our populations of “consumers” are in that bird suit and we are standing at the edge of a very tall cliff and the people in charge are saying... OK you go now.

When you break down arguments it's really insane to see what people are against and why, and in most of the cases it's because they don't really know what the fuck they are talking about... just air going over lips.  If there was a science political party, with the right funding I’m sure you could have somebody explain that 5x5 is indeed 26, and you could probably get enough supporters to in one way or another affect the outcome of an election thus giving way to all manor of debate.  All the while people in power might decide going to school is too dangerous so instead of educating children we need armed solders on every street corner, and in an unrelated bill it appears that meetings of 4 or more people are now banned and any solider that see's such a thing is authorized to use maximum force to enforce the law.  Did I go off the deep end there... perhaps time will tell.