my friend thinks if u are poor..earning money is the central importance in life..and appreciating art and philosophy etc is for rich people who dont have better things to do..what do u think?
2006-07-02 23:40:04 · 24 answers · asked by rainbowbrite 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
Negative. Great literature and art is made to appreciated by mankind. A narrative to tell a story or experssion, or to be simply created because of the twitch on the left side of your brain. I am poor, and to be honest the central importance to me is not money, and I have spent lots of the little money I do have on art, or the arts. I went and saw Superman Returns, that is just a movie, but its part of the arts. Rich and poor it dont matter, while the rich may have the chance to see and dwell closer to "great" art, the poor can still look at a picture of a sculpture and be moved.
2006-07-02 23:46:07 · answer #1 · answered by k0stiia 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are partly true.I have seen a lot of friends who left there artistic activities to lack of time from running after the bread and butters. But if your love for art is intense enough then you can do both the Art as well as earning money. After all what is life without struggle. And if you could hold the right course then the Arts that you pursue may make you rich as well.
2006-07-03 06:52:26 · answer #2 · answered by Bapuni 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. Art and philosophy enrich our lives. Sometimes people who have a lot of bucks just engage in art and stuff because that's what they think they should do. Keep in mind most artists and great thinkers are not rich and are in fact poor. Yes, we all have to make a living but we should also make time to appreciate art and thought. Our lives will only be richer for it. Who knows, you might be inspired to paint a great painting or write a great book! Life is boring and stressful if you are just chasing the dollar.
2006-07-03 06:51:32 · answer #3 · answered by Venusp 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Art is for the people who can taste the art either rich or poor. sometimes poor people spend more time working to get things that more important in the life than Art, like food and clothes.
2006-07-03 06:46:30 · answer #4 · answered by AAA 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, that's ridiculous.
That rich may have more time to spend on idle activities like appreciating art and philosophy, but they can be important to everyone.
2006-07-03 06:44:49 · answer #5 · answered by night_trekker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Art is only for the rich, Rich in culture,Aesthetic sense, Appreciation for Beauty etc.,
2006-07-03 06:53:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't agree that arts is for the rich only. Poor or rich, educated or illetirate, arts is for everyone. Just like beauty, it is in the eyes of the beholder.
:)
2006-07-03 06:50:32 · answer #7 · answered by morning glory 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not right way to ponder. It's for everybody regardless of race or cast. Great artistic work has been provided by the poor who raised to their fame.
Take the example of John Milton, Geaoffery Chaucer, Leonardo DeVinci etc. etc. and recently the author of "Harry Potter".
2006-07-03 06:56:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your friend is making a statement roughly based on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
If people do not have safety and security, shelter, food, companionship etc, then it is unlikely they have much time to pursue the arts.
However, lots of people who are not wealthy love the arts and ideas etc.
2006-07-03 06:46:29 · answer #9 · answered by P. M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The arts are for everybody. You don't have to have money to appreciate art, and if all your life is nothing but earning money, then what's the point?
I've been homeless, but I still discussed philosophy and appreciated art.
2006-07-03 06:43:57 · answer #10 · answered by grinningleaf 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋