Search the Community

So I figured I'd post it here as my first post. My major is history. I am applying as a transfer student. The topic was up to me to decide. I chose Indiana Jones and adventure. My all-time favorite movie character is Indiana Jones. As a child I would watch Indiana Jones movies almost every day. I would even imitate him by using a leather shoestring as a whip. My parents wouldn't let me have the real thing. Even as I've gotten older I still watch all of the Indiana Jones movies. The movies have given me a love of history. But now, every time I watch one of them a desire overcomes me. A desire for adventure. Soon I will be 19 years old. And, as others have told me, I have my whole life ahead of me. And my goal is to make the most of it. I want to set myself apart from what everyone else has done and is doing. The melancholy of daily life is not for me. I want my life tomorrow to be as different from today as I can possibly get it. But most importantly I want it to have meaning. If what I do 20 years from now is meaningless then I would consider my life a failure. The same monotonous task every day has no meaning. There is no progress. There is no change in a melancholy life. If 20 years from now I have not progressed, then I have not changed and I have no meaning. And to truly change anything, to truly make progress, one has to be brave enough to take the initiative. One has to be brave enough to venture out into the unknown, be it a foreign student in an exotic land on a new campus, or an archaeologist trekking the sands of Egypt searching for the Ark of the Covenant. They are both brave enough to go on an adventure that changes their lives. The foreign student changed they're life by becoming educated. And Indiana Jones changed not his life, but other people's lives. Instead of the Ark of the Covenant continuing to be lost he changed people's entire beliefs. My goal is to take that adventure that changes, not just my life, but others lives as well.

No idea whether this is the right place to put this. i am working on a theory, and i was hoping for some input. Why is it that artists claim to hate financial elites and love the common man and yet produce art the common man hates but banking elites buy? to briefly explain where i am coming from, most original artworks are brought by banks directly as investment opportunities or by incredibly rich people as decorations for houses. The art community is incredibly closed off to people who break away from this model, as they are commercial artists. at art shows, the most audacious price for a work will make the most attention, and the rest will disappear into obscurity at provincial galleries. Why is it that on the first lesson of art school, i am told all of this, and then given a load of socialist books to read? how will these books help me sell art to banks? surly i should read up on economics and produce big sculptures that celebrate the glories of banking? Every one thinks art is great, and that public galleries are great because for poor people, seeing art is like a free cultural education. So they think art should be available to the poor, yet when a person dosnt understand the work, they are dismissed as not having the sufficient education as to understand the work. the criticism is not taken into account. if you are actually making work for someone, and that person tells you that they dont like the work, then you have to take their criticisms to heart. if you do not take that persons criticisms to heart and yet you still make money, then it is clear to me that you are not in fact making work for who you claim to be making work for. why are they all trying to claim to work for the poor? because the bloody professors are handing out these socialist books and marking them on how good a socialist they are, despite this not making any sense at all. so before the government gets involved, i want to straighten things out again. The artists want to produce work for rich people because they have the most money. The rich people want to buy art from the artists because of status, or investment or aesthetic desire. the obvious way to do this kind of thing would be to talk directly to the rich people and ask them what kind of art they want. Imagine the art school field trip to hsbc's underground art vault to discuss trends in art buying, or the art school field trip to the rich divorcee banker's 2nd house in Spain to discuss how he wants paintings to match his drapes. Or the artists could find a way to make art that 'normal' people wanted to buy or look at. i dunno both of those options seem hard so lets bring in the government to tell us what to like and what not to like. they hire university professors who hand out whatever doctrine is desired at that time, but usually revolves around the idea that business is bad and we need a bigger government. and nihilism. the government also takes money from people and spends it on art that it wants the people to see, and then makes this seem more moral then just selling art to banks. admittedly this option is boring to me, but at least im not holding a gun to anyone's head. intellectuals who are paid by the government grade and give prominence to work that 'they' like, so the value of work rises independently from its quality. People see this without seeing the causality, and think the art world is mad. they become alienated from art and stop engaging with it. artists see this and become more dependent on the government. the banks buy the work like stock because they know the quality of the work doesnt matter to the value. Artists see this, and not understanding the causality think that banks randomly choose work to exhibit, and so have no understanding of what is good quality art and what is bad quality art. thats what i am working with right now. i admit this is a total brain fart, but can anyone tell me if they think i am close to the mark? i am currently researching an essay on this idea so that i can stop it rolling around in my head like a bag of marbles, so would appreciate any ideas.