Kimber Scott wrote:
Some people give other people respect simply for the fact they are fellow travelers on the same rock. I'm sorry to have bothered you with the whole premise of this conversation. How silly of me to have thought publicly funded art instruction could be improved. I bow to your righteousness. It can't be done.
Some people give other people respect simply for the fact they are fellow travelers on the same rock. I'm sorry to have bothered you with the whole premise of this conversation. How silly of me to have thought publicly funded art instruction could be improved. I bow to your righteousness. It can't be done.
Thanks, I actually do think that I am right in this. Isn't it odd that people consider such a point of view inherently wrong?
As for the idea that everyone deserves respect for merely being alive, there's a certain respect in which I agree with you and a certain respect in which I don't. I respect those folks in the sense that I believe that they should be free from anybody forcing them to produce this or that kind of art or any art at all. I don't think that they should be forced to support the kind of art that I like if they don't want to. What's interesting about this particular case is that in that regard I respect them a lot more than they respect me (they force me to support their stuff through involuntary taxation etc.).
On another level though, I very much disagree that we owe anyone with a pulse respect beyond that. There are plenty of crude, corrupt, stupid, and evil people in the world and the idea that we should somehow endorse their activities is morally abominable. Under such a rule who benefits and who suffers? No good can come from such a policy.
Anyway, if you disagree with me and you think that the academic art world can be changed from within then by all means go ahead and change it. If you can I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong and congratulate you for your efforts.
--Brian
