Re: Robin's Arts Post (Was Re: Extropic Flare In NY Art

QueeneMUSE@aol.com
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:51:22 EDT

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...