You have me at a disadvantage because I don't know much about art. When people say "art", I think of a painting but, of course, there's other kinds, like music. Some people who produce music are called "artists", but others are called things like "entertainers", "musicians", or "performers". So how do you tell he difference? Is it a subjective thing, or is there some kind of generally recognized standard by which their work is judged? You used Elvis as an example, but I never was a great Elvis fan, so I don't know the difference between the early Elvis and the fat Elvis. I do know the difference between the early Bob Dylan and the electrified, degenerate, rock and roll Bob Dylan, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that one of them was an artist and one of them wasn't, I just know that I liked Dylan's early work a lot better than his later stuff and felt betrayed when he switched over.
As far as giving great works of art to the poor people, hoping to inspire them, well maybe, but maybe not. Awhile back they started a program to give cell phones with prepaid minutes to the poor and, as far as I know, they're still doing it. A lady I used to correspond with on the internet, who lived in some kind of low-income housing complex because she was disabled and couldn't work anymore, said that many of her neighbors immediately sold their free cell phones to buy drugs. Of course all poor people aren't drug addicts, but that's just what the lady said about some people that she knew.
I think that just giving people those paintings wouldn't help, you'd also have to give them a class in art appreciation or something like that. Then again, if you gave them the class, maybe you wouldn't even have to give them the paintings. If I catch your drift, the whole point is to show them that there are other things in life than what they are accustomed to, and that they shouldn't resign themselves to accepting their present condition.
This reminds me of that bunch of teenagers that came to help us clean up after the Bliss Fest one year. They seemed like decent kids, but I never got to meet any of them personally. I was told that they were "high risk youth" from the inner city who were brought up north to show them that there are other ways to live than what they were used to. I don't know if it was a government program or if it was sponsored by some church or charitable organization. Anyway, they helped us pick up litter after the festival. They weren't paid, but I think that they got a meal or something out of it. I only saw them from a distance, but they appeared to be happy in their work, and I didn't see anybody standing over them with a whip and a gun. I was told that their work at the festival was only one stop on their itinerary, and that they were doing other fun stuff while they were in the neighborhood.
Human beings are about the most adaptable creatures on Earth, they can get used to just about anything if they have to. Sometimes, though, they adapt too well for their own good. I have heard of people who are released from prison and immediately commit another crime just to get back in there. Apparently, they adapt so well to prison life that they have a hard time un-adapting to it after they get out.
So anyway, your idea might have some merit, even though I suspect that there was a certain amount of sarcastic humor imbedded within it. It's like that old Chinese proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day. Teach a man how to fish and he will be a regular customer at your bait and tackle store for the rest of his life." I think it loses something in the translation, most of that Oriental stuff does, but that doesn't mean it's totally worthless.
No comments:
Post a Comment