Since we seen to be on the topic of being perfect little power users, does anyone use fluorescent lights? I use them and they're pretty good. Something with equivalent lumens to a 60 watt bulb only uses 14-15.
I use them a lot more now than I used to. They seem to have finally solved the ballast and dimness issues, so my energy-saving bulb will actually turn on instantly AND be bright enough so that I don't strain my eyes. PROGRESS!
Using fluorescent lights that use a ballast will spend more than the compact fluorescent bulbs as the ballast (guessing its one of the regular coil ones with an ignitor) only output about 70% of their intake to the bulb, compact fluorescent bulbs have small E-ballasts inside them that are about 90% effective, meaning they only waste 10%
As for art, I don't object to the creation of it but I do object to people paying huge sums of money for what is nothing more than a pile of scrap metal welded together.
So I can object to people paying for movies? It's nothing more than a series of film clips strung together.
Right. But that will be different, I bet.
I think you might be misunderstanding me. I don't object to the creation of the art. I only object to the waste of paying lots of money for what is nothing more than a pile of scrap metal welded together (modern art).
I think you might be misunderstanding me. I don't object to the creation of the art. I only object to the waste of paying lots of money for what is nothing more than a pile of scrap metal welded together (modern art).
No, I understand you completely. It is all down to what you think is a lot of money, and who is paying.
Two examples: 1. My girlfriend is an artist. She uses found materials to make collages. One person buys each picture and they pay between a few hundred to a few thousand euros. One person puts in all the work and one person pays all the money.
2. A Hollywood studio makes a film. The credits of the film run to maybe 500 people, all of whom need paying. Lots of people each pays maybe 10 euro to see the film and each person who worked on the film gets their fee or percentage or cut.
I think 95% of Hollywood movies are nothing more than crap wrapped in mindnumbing packaging. You think modern art is nothing more than scrap presented in a different way. Either way lots of money is paid, it is just spread out among more people in the case of a movie. In my opinion paying 10 euro to see a pointless and derivative Christmas movie is a much bigger waste of money than paying 1000 euro for a piece of modern art to hang on my wall. I would NEVER consider paying even so little much money for a bad movie, but if I find a piece of art I like I'd consider paying the money for it (or, more likely, trying to get my girlfriend to trade a piece of her art with the other artist).
I think 95% of Hollywood movies are nothing more than crap wrapped in mindnumbing packaging. You think modern art is nothing more than scrap presented in a different way. Either way lots of money is paid, it is just spread out among more people in the case of a movie. In my opinion paying 10 euro to see a pointless and derivative Christmas movie is a much bigger waste of money than paying 1000 euro for a piece of modern art to hang on my wall. I would NEVER consider paying even so little much money for a bad movie, but if I find a piece of art I like I'd consider paying the money for it (or, more likely, trying to get my girlfriend to trade a piece of her art with the other artist).
Hey Luke, I think you missed the point again, he's trying to say that what is wasteful is subjective.
Hey Luke, I think you missed the point again, he's trying to say that what is wasteful is subjective.
That is exactly my point too. I'm just not seeing why he is singling out one type of art and presenting it as worthless as opposed to any for of art that any other one person thinks is pointless.
The thing is, while I think it is a waste, I don't object to anyone else doing it. Steve does object to money being spent on modern art, but probably doesn't object to orders of magnitude more money being spent on movies. I object to neither.
When a movie makes millions of dollars it pays for hundreds (if not thousands) of jobs. When someone pays millions of dollars for a piece of art how many people benefit? Most pieces of art (Monet, Picasso, Renoir, etc) only become worth millions after the artist is dead.
Either way waste is subjective. As beautiful as the Mona Lisa is I would rather see someone spend those millions on scientific research than on acquiring a rare work of art.
When a movie makes millions of dollars it pays for hundreds (if not thousands) of jobs. When someone pays millions of dollars for a piece of art how many people benefit?
My point is that you can't divide art up into things that are worth money or not, and then object to one and not another. A movie is paid for by millions, and pays for the jobs thousands. A single piece of art that my girlfriend makes is paid for by one person, and keeps one person in a job. One person benefits, but only one person pays, and they pay no more and no less than what they think the art is worth to them. The creator and the buyer are both served and both happy. Isn't this a fundamental freedom people should have? Personally I think art is worth a lot, and good artists should be rewarded for their contribution to the world. A Tom Cruise can earn 20 million for one film, and Damien Hurst can raise 200 million in two days. Either way, people are free to pay what they want for art.
So when waste is subjective, why object to one form of art and not another?
So everyone can object to anything, and rules should be be put in place to stop anyone ever paying anything for art? You used the "A Picasso could pay for a new university" argument when you can equally say "The Lord of the Rings trilogy could pay for ten new hospitals". To object any form of art based on subjective taste is just stupid, as every single argument can be turned back to anything you yourself have ever paid for.
When did I say rules should be put in place to stop someone from wasting their money? If you have the ability to create something you should be paid as much as the market will bear for your skills.
I can sit here all day long and object when someone spends a lot of money on something I consider to be wasteful but I do not make the rules and I would not make such a rule even if I had the power to do so. The only exception I can think of would be if a government entity chose to waste money on something using tax dollars. Even that exception would be dependant on what the agency's mission was. If a government art museum wanted to spend millions on some rare art than I'm fine with that. If my local town hall wants to spend millions buying rare art to hang behind the mayors desk then I have a problem.
Comments
Two examples:
1. My girlfriend is an artist. She uses found materials to make collages. One person buys each picture and they pay between a few hundred to a few thousand euros. One person puts in all the work and one person pays all the money.
2. A Hollywood studio makes a film. The credits of the film run to maybe 500 people, all of whom need paying. Lots of people each pays maybe 10 euro to see the film and each person who worked on the film gets their fee or percentage or cut.
I think 95% of Hollywood movies are nothing more than crap wrapped in mindnumbing packaging. You think modern art is nothing more than scrap presented in a different way. Either way lots of money is paid, it is just spread out among more people in the case of a movie. In my opinion paying 10 euro to see a pointless and derivative Christmas movie is a much bigger waste of money than paying 1000 euro for a piece of modern art to hang on my wall. I would NEVER consider paying even so little much money for a bad movie, but if I find a piece of art I like I'd consider paying the money for it (or, more likely, trying to get my girlfriend to trade a piece of her art with the other artist).
The thing is, while I think it is a waste, I don't object to anyone else doing it. Steve does object to money being spent on modern art, but probably doesn't object to orders of magnitude more money being spent on movies. I object to neither.
Either way waste is subjective. As beautiful as the Mona Lisa is I would rather see someone spend those millions on scientific research than on acquiring a rare work of art.
So when waste is subjective, why object to one form of art and not another?
I can sit here all day long and object when someone spends a lot of money on something I consider to be wasteful but I do not make the rules and I would not make such a rule even if I had the power to do so. The only exception I can think of would be if a government entity chose to waste money on something using tax dollars. Even that exception would be dependant on what the agency's mission was. If a government art museum wanted to spend millions on some rare art than I'm fine with that. If my local town hall wants to spend millions buying rare art to hang behind the mayors desk then I have a problem.