Question Home

Position:Home>General - Arts & Humanities > If Homo Sapien alone, survived because he was more creative then y don't we supp


Question:

If Homo Sapien alone, survived because he was more creative then y don't we support artistans more? Any ideas?

Cash grants--seem to go into the pockets of agencies--not artists--so what should we do?

Additional Details

3 months ago
i have two answers--both great--but both are off a bit. It is artistically creative (as in sculpting) to create a better spear and better axe--carpentry, design concept ... these are creative artistic traits--is it not. I want to know why today's society--looks a bit down on artists. So many I've encountered seem to only relate to painting with thier experiences of scribbling with a crayon as a kid--which by the way is something homo sapien does naturally, around three or four years of age.


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Art doesn't assist in raw survival. Homo Sapiens were more creative in generating something that assisted in survival. A painting doesn't provide food, shelter, etc. Creating fire and weapons did.

Computer technicians, Wall Street investors, accountants... these are the occupations who are more supported than artists because they are perceived as being more vital to our economy and our survival. People are still hung up on survival to a large extent whether they're aware of it or not.