I don't agree, and I suppose this is just my opinion but I just tend to dislike the idea that art is in the eye of the beholder.
I think we've extended the use of the word art too far. In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures. Good art involves a lot of skill, eg: years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter. While a lot of this stuff is opinionated there are definitely rules to a lot of these things. There are essentially guidelines that have log existed for measuring an artists ability to capture color, shapes, light, and movement. Even with more modern styles like van Gogh and Monet these rules applied.
At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern movement and said art can be anything, becoming more focused on the cleverness and profound underlying message that this new "art" contained rather than the skill, dedication, and aesthetics that went into it.
Let's say you see tens or hundreds of works by artists who qualify ("years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter"). Do you think you'd describe all the works as "good"?
Seems doubtful.
Or maybe you would say they are indeed all "good", but not equally good. Or maybe each night be "good and...." some other quality, varying between the works.
So what are those qualities that might distinguish between all those "good" works? And might you see if they apply to other forms of visual art? Perhaps those qualities might find a fuller or more varied expression in other media?
> At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern movement and said art can be anything
I remember the first time I walked into a gallery and saw that someone had stenciled "FUCK" on the wall and the docent was smugly explaining about how artistically creative it was. Nah, sometimes a "FUCK" is just a "FUCK."
So-called modern art is, at best, a money laundering scheme, and other applications go downhill from there.
That's not to say there aren't tons of gifted and talented artists making art today, they just aren't who you're going to see in the galleries.
What you appreciate is the "craft" of art. Which is great, the work of talented artists that are able to craft amazing scenes and stories is truly beautiful. Eventually though, you need something more than just the aesthetics of it all.
I think its safe to argue that after thousands of years of art, we (the viewer) evolved to want more from it all, and the art world responded in kind.
A really subversive piece of art work (Ai Weiwei) is a lot more stimulating than a beautiful portrait (Rembrandt).
In my opinion photography is close but still distinct enough that I would call it separate from art, film takes this even furthur. Cooking is way different from art, sure you can add the word "arts" after anything, but all it's really saying is that the thing is being done in a creative manner...
I don't think I've ever heard such a circumscribed definition of art before. Did you get this conception of art from somewhere or is it just a personal redefinition of the word?
I get where you are coming from, but to me it's like saying a painting is "visual music" or to call a painter who doesn't make music a musician, those are just two totally different things.
My main criticism here is the overextension of the word "art". It's often used to describe something as "creative", "tasteful", "well made", "pretty", or even just "really good". But that doesn't mean something is actually art. In my opinion real art is like a good view, it's a carefully crafted physical object that's only purpose is to be nice to look at, nothing else. And a real artist must make real art to truly be one.
If you want to call something art as an expression then that's totally fine, I just think it's ridiculous to say music is literally art.
What do you base this idea that “art” should only include sculptures and painting. Some cursory googling into the etymology and history of the word suggest it was often used in even more broad senses, describing things probably neither of us would consider “art”.
A flash hider such as a "3 prong" achieves the same affect with no moving parts, also suppressors can pretty much eliminate all flash and offer hearing protection and additional signature reduction by reducing the db levels and changing the pitch of the noise.
Yeah for a fraction of the cost in complexity, weight and issues with consumables a suppressor does all of what they were talking about and more. The US army is in theory going to a new rifle and issuing suppressors to every (frontline) infantry unit with the NGSW contract.
(We'll see how widely the new system and everything actually gets deployed but it was an important part of the whole program at least)
Why not just build one in? I guess I'm accustomed to assault rifles having flash suppressors because the one that I've actually handled and lugged around and shot with, the Valmet RK 62, does have a suppressor built in, a distinctive feature [1].
I'm not seeing anything about a built in sound suppressor just a flash suppressor which is a fairly common feature on modern assault rifles and their civilian variants. You don't generally build in a suppressor because they're technically wear items as the hot gases will slowly erode the baffles over time. That plus their extra weight and cost meant most militaries only issued them to units that were built for stealth missions in the past.
A bit yeah though they went from 20-inch M16s at the beginning of the GWOT to 14.5 or less as the main weapon so there was space to slap a suppressor on but you'd give up the maneuverability gains of losing that length. The NGSW winner is pretty short barreled before the suppressor is added and it required particularly spicy (high pressure) ammo to still be effective at that short of a length.
If California wanted more representation in both the Senate and the House, it could divide. Instantaneously the population of California would get 2 Senators and probably a large number of House Seats. Further, it would help with the political divide in California: coast is left, farmers are right. You don't see California, as a political entity, chomping at the bit to subdivide.
As to the particulars of your comment, States should have far more autonomy than they do under FDR's federalist system. States should be able to tax more, but with the Feds already eating 20-50% of the populations income, States have a hard time raising funds. If we weakened the feds, but first paying down the debt, Alabama might have a far more interesting economy.
California would likely divide itself in a way to advantage the current politicians that govern the state. Not really Gerrymandering as we know it, but a similar principle.
Republicans would obviously not accept this. We would likely replay the decades leading up to the Civil War, where adding states was a contentious and at times violent process.
The feds would also have to approve it. If Republicans can stop it, they will. If Democratic politicians can push it through, they would likely get blowback from moderates. Republicans would get power and seek to balance or even advantage themselves. We could end up with eight Dakotas (just kidding on this specific example; other Republican states might want to split too).
This is not a fight either party wants to start because it could be a disaster for them. The intended outcome (increase relative Senate representation) has slim odds and a high cost.
I never had an issue with facebook (granted I haven't used either for years), rather instagram. When I was in college instagram really took a toll on my mental health. I'd see friends post the exact same photos as I did and get 2x-3x-4x more likes, and I'd follow people who wouldn't follow me back, It made me question my self worth or social standing. I think facebooks system of "friends" rather than "followers" and reduced emphasis on likes is much less harmful, I always felt like I was being rated in front of everyone on insta.
Looking back on it, it really bothers me because I had a lot of good friends that I am still close with, partied a lot, had good relationships, and overall had a really good college experience. I feel like instagram took a bit of that away from me. At some point I realized this and deleted the app, shortly after I was happy as could be.
I don't think it's bad in general considering the size of the country and especially considering the fact that we have hundreds of millions of civilian owned guns (23 million sold last year, and even more sold this year already). When you compare guns to other stuff like drunk driving it shows how blown out of proportion the problem is.
I would expect drunk-driving deaths to far exceed firearm homicides, and it's honestly shocking that firearm homicides are that high. I think the stats show that it's not blown out of propertion.
Why would you expect that when drunk driving gets practically no attention at all? It's even socially acceptable and joked about within certain cultural circles.
That's exactly my point. Drink driving is not uncommon, to the point where it's acceptable to some parts of society. But no part of society believes intent to kill with a gun is acceptable, yet despite the heavy scrutiny it receives, firearm homicides are still way higher than drunk driving deaths.
I know that these numbers are not directly comparable, but given the deadly nature of automobiles in general, I expected drunk-driving deaths to be somewhere around 50000 per year.
Then why isn't there any serious discussion about tighter alcohol regulation then? The CDC says that alcohol abuse in the US results in ~95,000 deaths per year, combined with drunk driving thats over 100k deaths, thats significantly higher than all gun deaths. On top of that it's difficult to argue there is any utility to it at all beyond recreational use. Where are the cries to ban alcohol?? Wouldn't it be worth banning it even if it saved just one life???
The same reason there isn't serious discussion about voter competency tests: US politics is traumatised by the specific history of that particular kind of law.
(Though IMO you're focusing on the wrong half. Drink-driving deaths don't show that alcohol is dangerous, they show that cars are dangerous - you only have to look at the number of non-alcohol-related driving deaths to see that.)
True, although it's really the driver at fault, and the next logical thing to blame would be the alcohol. The connection between drugs/alcohol and gun violence gets completely overlooked though so why not blame the cars.
I think the argument that he is making is that work visas are used to increase the labor pool (creating a "buyers market" for companies that are hiring). If a company cant find anyone willing to accept their offer then they need to improve the compensation and working environment... or they could hire a worker from the visa pool, thus suppressing wages, benefits, WLB, etc...
It's labor-economics 101.
It doesn't matter what the job is, if you pay enough then someone will take the job (and become qualified if needed).
ex: I'd scrub the shit out of sewage pipes with a toothbrush if you paid me enough, but most companies would just say that there is a "skilled labor shortage".
Thanks for the explanation. This description is easy to grasp and makes sense. I tried to look for some numbers following your description and it seems like that the H1B wages are not lower than local market in average according to this Glassdoor study [0]. After reading it I was curious to see what’s the ratio of H1B for tech jobs (which is probably dominating the Glassdoor study) and apparently it’s the majority according to this Pew Research study [1].
