See this photo:
Do you know what’s the problem with it? There’s only one, single, tiny, problem:
- It starts with the assumption that art is good.
That’s it. That’s the sole problem. :) Let me dig deeper into this.
See the title? It can mean the following (see the letters, combined):
- Earth – it’s the whole world.
- Arts (arte in Romanian) – it’s about art.
- Heart – love & passion (poor choice word, the latter one). Joy & happiness (better).
- Hate – it’s also, this, it’s true.
I think the word combines what I feel about these, in a single thing.
I admire Horia-Roman Patapievici. He means a lot to me. At times, he used to have some issues in controlling his anger. He had all the right reasons. Time passed, and he seemed to become more tolerant with others (and, perhaps, himself).
I have some anger in me right now on the harte subject. I will provide no examples, I will be purely in the upper levels of thinking, and not come down to real-life examples. And I will try to speak on the subject with serenity.
Some thoughts on harte?
- Artists think they are worth something. And when they do, the whole world collapses.
- Artists have a mission. They need to provide the world with something worthy. They have to do that piece of art. (more on this)
- Artists deserve things. They are entitled.
- Art is inspiring. It is.
- Artists, to me, are rather not. Some of them, at least.
- Theater is the exception. Most actors I met are quite fine.
- Philosophy & Law are not exceptions. People in both of these + art tend to talk too much. Why? Because they have things to say. Why? Because they say the right things. Why? Because they are better & supperior.
- Jesus Christ Superstar is a opera by Andrew Lloyd Webber. I think Jesus can’t be associated in a correct way to a superstar, because I don’t think Jesus was very proud.
- I think artists have a bias towards “love me, look at me, I’m great, I’m worth something, I deserve things”.
- This pretty much leads into racist behavior.
- I was supposed to find some peace with this, but, right now, still, I haven’t.
- The biggest problem I have with harte people is the entitlement, which leads into racism. (“I create an work of art, I am a king of my castle, I can treat you poorly, serve me!”)
There’s another meaning of the word “harte”, can you see it? Think about it, then scroll for the answer.
It’s a rroma people word, which is “art”, but in slang – “harte, mânca-ți-aș“. I think the tendency to miss this meaning is also a sign of a lack of mind liberty – “I will not associate art with rroma people”. This is first racist, but most of it, it’s providing with a lack of freedom.
The good part of harte? It is the heart, and art is beautiful. I tend not to like the sacrifices it demands.
Popular ballad “Monastirea Argeșului” illustrates the aesthetic myth in folkloric literature and is based on belief that nothing durable and unique by goodliness can not be built without the creator’s self-sacrifice, making this creation a philosophical poem. (source)
- Yes, art is the beautiful monastery resulted from the work.
- Unfortunately, to build it, there is also a monster-y which is created from within. Ana gets killed. The child from within her, also. It’s the inner things which get corrupted (the monastery builds on Ana, who has in her another life).
I tend not to like this sacrifice. Art is heart & beauty & light. But the dark ego which comes with it barely justifies the result.
So, which are the artists in my life? I’ll try to forget them, so just ignore them.
De Sfântul Anton din Padova, atât de îndrăgit de catolici, multora le place a grăi cu mare condescendenţă de nu şi cu ironie. Sfântul care-ţi găseşte cheile pierdute şi căţelul rătăcit!
Câtă orbire şi pripită răutate în acest fel de a judeca! Teologii catolici precizează că Sf. Anton nu vine în ajutorul celor care au pierdut diferite obiecte ci în al acelora care şi-au pierdut credinţa, virtutea, nădejdea…
Nu zic ba, însă nu mă sfiesc să-l admir pe Sf. Anton din Padova şi ca ocrotitor al oamenilor umili necăjiţi şi ca sprijin întru găsirea unor lucruri care în anumite împrejurări şi pentru anumiţi oameni (bătrâni, bolnavi, însinguraţi, prigoniţi) pot lua o importanţă covârşitoare. Pierderea cheilor casei, ce chin şi ce necaz pentru un bătrân sărac, pentru un neputincios, un neajutorat… Pierderea câinelui iubit pentru omul lipsit de orice prieten, ce nefericire! Există dureri ne-măreţe, ne-tragice, există năpaste caraghioase, necazuri sâcâitoare şi boli care nu ucid însă otrăvesc viaţa pătimitorului: Oare nu şi acestea se cade a fi luate în seamă?
În nesfarşita-i bunătate, Sf. Anton nu se ruşinează a le veni neîntârziat în ajutor. E un act de curaj, căci implică sfidarea neroziei şi nepăsării faţă de suferinţe foarte reale deşi lipsite de fală.
Bunul, modestul, grijuliul Sfânt Anton!
It seems I should focus on the big things, not small things. Even if Steinhardt says it’s, still, OK, it’s a bit saying with superiority – “hmm, this is allowed; not optimal, but allowed”.
Right now, instead of building a monastery, and, for this thing, becoming monster-y from within, I prefer to look for other things to do (no monastery? OK, I’ll build a stable; non-noble stable; even a unstable stable).
I will focus on leaving the earth without art, if that’s the price being paid.
“Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to”
“Col. Jessep: Who the f*** is Pfc. William T. Santiago?”
P.S.: So, what’s the solution to the proble in this article? See this article: