Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (23008)	5/27/1999 8:18:00 PM
From: Graystone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

The Steviart Thread or Nominal Hypotheticalism I like Art. What is Art ? Why, it's what I like. AZNT is not Art, it is Steviart. This company ranks right up there, but taking money is not Art, or is it ? Many people will tell you quite truthfully, they are not Artists, ask them. I would guess most will tell you they are not Artists. As you pointed out TLC, the intent must be formed if Art is the result. I do not believe that potential is something that exists for everyone. As Janice pointed out, the NBA is a filter you cannot hope to pass if you're only 5'2". The potential for Artistic talent is something I would say is even rarer than the potential to be an NBA player. It is like this thread, AZNT has been "obviously off" from the beginning and the remaining posters who spout the byline of management are about as good as $3.00 bills. The potential never did exist, I believe that. It was from the getgo... AZNT : SI's Stupidest Thread

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (23008)	5/27/1999 11:40:00 PM
From: DSPetry	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

I wish we were sitting in the same room, so we could discuss your statement, "everyone is an artist". I think I many know what you are trying to say, but I can't tell for sure. I will say this: you can say everyone is an artist, but you are, unfortunately, incorrect. Everyone has the potential of being an artist, but it's tough to call someone an artist if they do not make art. The truth is that some people are artists, and some people are not. Everyone could be, but not everyone is. I'll preface this by saying Art is not my strong suit... But...Isn't Art defined by your tastes??? I look at a Micheal Jordan gluiding through the air, or a Barry Sanders touchdown run as art. I'd spend the money to watch those athletes...I wouldn't spend the same money for a picasso... So, in that light, how can one say some people are artists & some people are not??? Its all Apples to oranges...

To: Don Pueblo who wrote (23008)	5/28/1999 1:23:00 AM
From: PCModem	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26163

I'd like to take this to another location out of respect for the topic. I know I've oversimplified and overgeneralized. There are exceptions to every "rule." As a symbolic interactionist by training, I know better. This medium does not lend itself to the kind of discussion our topic requires. If we don't have the makings of an artist within us, how can we appreciate art? This is very important IMHO. Was Picaso an artist before his first painting? Was Bach a great composer before he learned to play? They had the makings of the great artist within. We all have the making of an artist within. We just don't all have greatness within us. as you said: "Everyone has the potential of being an artist, but it's tough to call someone an artist if they do not make art. The truth is that some people are artists, and some people are not. Everyone could be, but not everyone is." Now I'll reveal one of my biases: If we are made in the image of God, how can we not be creators? I believe we are both. I agree, I wish we were sitting in the same room. I'm not arguing for the sake of argument. It is just that sometimes I think the last people in the world who should be reviewing movies are movie reviewers. (substitute other fields for movies). The movie reviewer (speaking generally) goes to see movies as part of his job and he sees more than the average viewer. The average viewer sees movies for entertainment, and to escape from his job (again, speaking very generally). My point is that the reviewer and the viewer have different purposes even different frames of reference. No wonder critically acclaimed movies are most often not box office successes, while most of the really popular movies earn thumbs down (again, speaking generally). It is ok, I guess, that some believe that the term "artist" is a title which can and should only be awarded under certain circumstances. I think we all have the makings of being an artist within us, and each act of creation is an expression of that artist-within. I would say that 'artist' belongs to all of us, but "great artist" is the title which should be awarded. I see no point, personally, in having a Picaso in my house. I don't enjoy the man's work. I see the talent and can appreciate his work at that level. I just don't like it. Same with Klee and others. Personal preference. I think we are pretty close to being on the same track. Thanks for the imprimatur: "PC, you seem like an OK dude." May I quote you? grin. I'll not be posting to this thread out of respect for the fact that this is not the topic here. We can continue this on some other thread if you wish. PCM