> Not a very good analogy.
> Politics affect everybody on a far more basic level than art does.
yikes! artie! i'm surprised you said that. although it does open up a
great platform for philsophical debate.
politicians are defined as those "actively engaged in conducting the
business of a government."
i don't agree that politics affects everyone a more basic level that art.
government relates to ruling, controlling, and manipulating people within a
society. at what point is government neccessary? when a group of people
reaches a certain size? when some people decide to engage in conflict?
some people have lived, can and do live - breathe, eat, sleep, think,
create, and all sorts of other things - without an outside entity to monitor
and direct their behavior.
i think the need and desire to create and view art as a form of
communication and expression could definitely be considered a more basic
need than the need to govern or be governed. theorists like ellen
dissanayake have made strong arguements for the biological neccessity of art
based upon anthropological studies. from a developmental perspective,
children are drawing lines and mandalas long before they experience the
desire to become a homeroom representative.
btw, politicians can't make it without artists - speechwriters, clothing
designers, tv producers, the people who create their logos, fliers,
personally, i "vote" for a society with a lot fewer politicians and a lot
more artists... :D