I just wrote my undergraduate thesis on the arts as a tool for development and integration. The arts are powerful and important and deserve proper attention and funding as such.
Jamie is a leader, an inspiring speaker and he nails it. The arts count. Our lives would be bereft without them. We are all better off with them and with Jamie as an advocate.
I'm not sure the bigwigs can lead that kind of conversation, but it's important! The democratising equalitarian and visionary vision of art and artists being everywhere is important; artists everywhere, at all "quality" levels in all sorts of fields! But perhaps de-emphasis on the suppressive and ecosystem aspects is important too. But there's a tension because of the ecosystem and less egalitarian aspects of society, there's also a safety-based subculture element that operates too. Politics and collective cultural wrestling. Not just arbitrary choices and specialism but something meaningful and organically vernacular. And there can be a melee between different existing arts structures and routes interacting with individual taste, snobbery, self-doubt and and the hierarchical ranking and all the high art trappings. Meanwhile those often attracted to and to some degree shunted into arts performer roles are charismatic outsiders but that role can be a two edged sword defined from outside. And there can be legitimate fears around identity, legitimacy, agency and self definition. But it's still important. Of course art is. Defining art by study numbers doesnt really capture the value: he who kisses the joy as it flies lives in eternity's sunrise!
I just wrote my undergraduate thesis on the arts as a tool for development and integration. The arts are powerful and important and deserve proper attention and funding as such.
Jamie is a leader, an inspiring speaker and he nails it. The arts count. Our lives would be bereft without them. We are all better off with them and with Jamie as an advocate.
I'm not sure the bigwigs can lead that kind of conversation, but it's important! The democratising equalitarian and visionary vision of art and artists being everywhere is important; artists everywhere, at all "quality" levels in all sorts of fields! But perhaps de-emphasis on the suppressive and ecosystem aspects is important too. But there's a tension because of the ecosystem and less egalitarian aspects of society, there's also a safety-based subculture element that operates too. Politics and collective cultural wrestling. Not just arbitrary choices and specialism but something meaningful and organically vernacular. And there can be a melee between different existing arts structures and routes interacting with individual taste, snobbery, self-doubt and and the hierarchical ranking and all the high art trappings. Meanwhile those often attracted to and to some degree shunted into arts performer roles are charismatic outsiders but that role can be a two edged sword defined from outside. And there can be legitimate fears around identity, legitimacy, agency and self definition. But it's still important. Of course art is.
Defining art by study numbers doesnt really capture the value: he who kisses the joy as it flies lives in eternity's sunrise!
important!
Good artists know this but are historically thwarted
im sorry but i cant deal with his accent :/