From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
Date: Tue Sep 28 1999 - 08:51:22 MDT
In a message dated 9/28/1999 4:04:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
neptune@mars.superlink.net writes:
<< On Monday, September 27, 1999 2:42 PM QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
>> It has long been my opinion that human artistic behavior is primarily
>> a product of sexual selection, not natural selection. People who
>> can sing, paint, draw, dance, etc. in a very pleasing way give
>> evidence of having sufficient wealth (in the form of leisure time)
>> to be attractive mates.
( ABOVE NOT BY QUEENEMUSE)
>
> hey - that's just another way of saying artists are sexy!!!!!
> But isn't that is a *result*, not a *cause* of using one's creative juices
to
> the max?
> Unless you are saying artists are artists 'cause they are horny...
I'm not sure how true the above is. Anecdotally, we see Picasso
screwing
around -- yet I hardly think his wealth and success measured well against
a
lot of nonartists, especially those in business such as Bill Gates, Andrew
Carnegie, or Leona Helmsley.
You missed the whole point, 'time being wealth' - viewing time as a resource.
That is a key and vital piece of information. I know millionaires who work
all the time and have no time for their families, friends or leaser. I know
artists who have time to create, but little money...
Money you can always make more of.
Time, once it's gone, baby it's gone...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:18 MST