This blog will be on hold for a while. Not that anyone other than me is reading this.
Q: So Tim why do you like talking to yourself?
Me: Who said that? Show yourself!
Q: Never mind.
Posting back here in 2008 - post-treatment.
08 May 2006
I believe 911 was a plot led by Al Queda and not George Bush.
There I said it - I'm clearly an idiot. Well according to a sales pitch on NZ's own Trade Me website.
I saw this post on the Trade Me the other day about this thing being a great deal "and if you don't believe that you'll be one of those idiots who think that George Bush had nothing to do with 9/11". Well actually I don't believe either of them. Which puts me in 'camp naive' according to another post I saw on a blog 6 months ago.
The growth in consipiracy thinking and the rejection of science and rationality is, in my opinion, one of the great issues we face. 'How do we know what is true' is an issue which has always had considerable debate and intellectual enquiry, but it seems post-modern 'perception is reality' has overturned the enlightenment. With the enlightenment and the growth in scientific (observable and verifiable) approach there was a major leap forward in getting an agreed basis for action.
I spose the irony is while we're debating how to deal with fundamentatist views in the Islamic world where science is outright rejected, our western conspiracists are agnostics or atheists. That is when if comes to science, that is they might believe science exists but don't believe anything it says, or if atheists they've heard of science but don't believe in it.
I saw this post on the Trade Me the other day about this thing being a great deal "and if you don't believe that you'll be one of those idiots who think that George Bush had nothing to do with 9/11". Well actually I don't believe either of them. Which puts me in 'camp naive' according to another post I saw on a blog 6 months ago.
The growth in consipiracy thinking and the rejection of science and rationality is, in my opinion, one of the great issues we face. 'How do we know what is true' is an issue which has always had considerable debate and intellectual enquiry, but it seems post-modern 'perception is reality' has overturned the enlightenment. With the enlightenment and the growth in scientific (observable and verifiable) approach there was a major leap forward in getting an agreed basis for action.
I spose the irony is while we're debating how to deal with fundamentatist views in the Islamic world where science is outright rejected, our western conspiracists are agnostics or atheists. That is when if comes to science, that is they might believe science exists but don't believe anything it says, or if atheists they've heard of science but don't believe in it.
04 May 2006
On professional arts in New Zealand
I have this growing sense that art in New Zealand shouldn't be professional. Kiwis are better at being generalists and professional rugby seems to have worked much better for the Australians and English than for us. Professional art also seems a way for some people to shut out others from participating.
One pro theatre has recently suggested that 'only professionally trained' actors should be on their stage. How does that get defined? Many of the grads from the drama schools are crap with no stage craft. Is acting like accountancy and requires standardised training?
The real reason for this entry criteria is trying to determine who's good and who's not. Not all the paid people are good and not all the unpaid are worse than the paid ones (look at Shortland Street!). Being trained or being paid are not the best determinates of good art. There are many famous painters who never made a living at it when they were alive, our greatest actors weren't trained.
More seriously though it's the money thing. Most NZ actors, painters, writers are on some form of government subsidy, New Zealand On Air, Creative NZ or creative communities, the unemployment benefit, or another grant which directly or indirectly goes into their pockets.
These are the very people trying to shunt out others from getting into here or there.
Maybe we should just accept that 98 per cent of NZ creative arts people are going to need some other form of income? What's wrong with that? If you are self supporting - that's fab. But if you're not - what did you expect from a country of 4 million people that worship rugby?
The latest insult was NZ actors voting to join Australian equity. This is likely to keep out many young actors from getting into productions based on their merit. Writers have tried similar moves.
Salman Rushdie in his book on Nicaragua noted that all Nicaraguans are poets. It doesn't mean that they all earn a full time wage writing poetry, but that many Nicaraguans write poetry.
Perhaps New Zealand could be a nation of artists and writers. Some earning money at it, most not. Where the market determines who is good, not those who have got to the top pulling up the ladder, by inventing more rigorous standards, or training requirements for everyone else.
I'm of the opinion that the govt should fund venues not wages for theatre. Let the audiences and private sponsorship pay the wages but let government funding allow opportunities for talent to bloom.
One pro theatre has recently suggested that 'only professionally trained' actors should be on their stage. How does that get defined? Many of the grads from the drama schools are crap with no stage craft. Is acting like accountancy and requires standardised training?
The real reason for this entry criteria is trying to determine who's good and who's not. Not all the paid people are good and not all the unpaid are worse than the paid ones (look at Shortland Street!). Being trained or being paid are not the best determinates of good art. There are many famous painters who never made a living at it when they were alive, our greatest actors weren't trained.
More seriously though it's the money thing. Most NZ actors, painters, writers are on some form of government subsidy, New Zealand On Air, Creative NZ or creative communities, the unemployment benefit, or another grant which directly or indirectly goes into their pockets.
These are the very people trying to shunt out others from getting into here or there.
Maybe we should just accept that 98 per cent of NZ creative arts people are going to need some other form of income? What's wrong with that? If you are self supporting - that's fab. But if you're not - what did you expect from a country of 4 million people that worship rugby?
The latest insult was NZ actors voting to join Australian equity. This is likely to keep out many young actors from getting into productions based on their merit. Writers have tried similar moves.
Salman Rushdie in his book on Nicaragua noted that all Nicaraguans are poets. It doesn't mean that they all earn a full time wage writing poetry, but that many Nicaraguans write poetry.
Perhaps New Zealand could be a nation of artists and writers. Some earning money at it, most not. Where the market determines who is good, not those who have got to the top pulling up the ladder, by inventing more rigorous standards, or training requirements for everyone else.
I'm of the opinion that the govt should fund venues not wages for theatre. Let the audiences and private sponsorship pay the wages but let government funding allow opportunities for talent to bloom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
