2006-06-18 17:07:45 · 6 answers · asked by megalomaniac 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
Art is not going to stop that big *** asteroid from hitting us, or predict the next volcano, tidal wave, earth quake, hurricane, or tornado. Art is not going to feed us when we are hungry, or make our cars more fuel efficient. Art is not even going to wake us up in the morning.
2006-06-18 17:15:02 · answer #1 · answered by Hawk996 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on where the human journey ends.
If this mortal life is all we have, then technology wins. Keeping people alive as long as possible would be our ultimate goal - you can no longer appreciate art after you've ceased to exist.
On the other hand, if death is only a milestone to an eternal soul, art obtains far greater importance. Technology can only benefit the physical world. When the boundary of mortality is crossed the effect of art on the life of an individual - to the extent that the consiousness remains intact - must live on.
2006-06-19 02:39:25 · answer #2 · answered by ijuhyg 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At this particular point in the human journey, what is more important apples or oranges?
2006-06-19 00:15:42 · answer #3 · answered by Nicktu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we don't have art, than is our journey that humane?
2006-06-20 16:58:29 · answer #4 · answered by adieu 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think we are getting to a place where art and technology are merging, amplifying each other.
2006-06-19 00:10:20 · answer #5 · answered by nickipettis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
to me it is art since im a ballerina and lifes just peachy
2006-06-19 00:15:00 · answer #6 · answered by Bailey W 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋