Thinking Questions 7

Would you value your life more (take fewer risky actions or attempt to decrease risk in actions you take) if you had more financial resources? To paraphrase, if you had unlimited wealth, would you value your life more than you do now? Would you feel that you have more to lose due to your wealth, or more possibilities to gain by taking risks?

For example, I cannot afford (in terms of both money and time) to drive around randomly in Europe or to travel to Tanzania and climb Kilimanjaro or to learn to fly personal aircraft or go spelunking or any of the various things i want to do. These activities require time and money that I don't have, but would generally carry greater risk than the activities that I now participate in (with what I would consider greater personal reward).

Would possession of wealth make you more hesitant to risk your life? Does having wealth mean you have more to gain, or more to lose?

--

Is beautiful music truly beautiful? Why is art beautiful? How does art in its various forms (pictorial, cinematic, musical, linguistic, etc.) inspire emotions in people? Surely, some art overtly imitates life, perhaps offering people the chance to view the world in its many aspects from different and possibly otherwise inaccessible angles.

I personally only regularly pursue music. I sometimes (sporadically? occasionally? infrequently? What's a good word for the opposite of regularly, but doesn't imply that I don't take it seriously?) engage in reading, and I suppose that writing falls under the same category. Every now and then I watch movies or television shows (but not reality television if I can help it... I hate reality television.) In any case, these actions affect my emotions, as art is wont to do. I prefer my emotions, however, to be manipulated by the real thing, as in circumstances, places, or other combinations that are not produced by man for the express purpose of affecting my emotions. I prefer real life to art.

But the product of these experiences is not the same as that which arises from experiencing art. For example, one of my favorite compositions "The Great Gate of Kiev" from "Pictures at an Exhibition" by Mussorgsky (itself art representing art representing real life) inspires in me a great sense of passion, wonderment, excitement, a feeling of extraordinary grandeur. I have not seen the painting that the composition is based on, nor have I seen the actual gate itself in Kiev, but I do know that I would surely not experience the same feeling when viewing either as when I listen to the piece. In fact, viewing the painting and the actual building would definitely not yield the same response, either.

This is my question, then: what is the difference between art and "real life"? Why are they different? Are they really different at all? Ought I to prefer the real deal to the imitation? Does art truly imitate life, or is art a part of life?

-

Also, art feeds most (actually, almost always) vision and hearing (and understanding). Why is there no smell art? I suppose food could be considered art, as well, though I don't think anybody has ever died from lack of music listening or sculpture viewing. Likely, somebody has lost his or her mind from inability to perceive outside stimuli, and this might be considered death. I hope somebody comes up with smell art, because I think that would be very interesting (or just novel).

--

Also:

Melissa: no
you're an
ARRRange