Typical Roulette Table Limits

What is an artist?

The other day I listened to a radio show: Eclectik on France Inter. And the guest was
Gianmaria Testa.

A moment during the show the reporter used the term "artist" to describe the and invited him answer that is not an artist, for him an artist is someone who is able to show something that nobody saw before him.
So my question today is what an artist?

the question box

What does the dictionary Doctor Philo?

Artist:

1 - Description Meaning: one who makes a work of art

2 - Direction designating a character or temperament: he who has a taste for arts

3 - laudatory Meaning: one who excels in an art

4 - pejorative meaning: a person behaving strangely.

we can see, there would be more quick to say what the artist is not to say what it is.

If we confine ourselves to the definition suggested by the guest Gianmaria Testa , we see that the definition of the artist follows closely that of the artwork. If the artist is someone who is able to show something that nobody saw before him is that it produces a work of art, that he is a creator . However, this definition has a defect, it it blessed as an artist who produces any crap as long as no one did - has dared do - the same thing before him. (See ic i the "artist's shit" Manzoni)

Finally, the best to define the artist would go back to the older design that it is conducted, subject to that it is still appropriate today.

What matters today is the commitment of the artist in his work. The artist is someone who tells his work: "It is I who has made ", in other words, nobody can have done the same thing because it is a part of myself - it was noted that the design of Hegel for which the artwork was something the human mind is presented and in the outside world. Note that it still includes the requirement that the creation has a meaning: the artist who throws random patches of paint on a canvas does not create a work, because it expresses nothing significant.

The artist is therefore someone sign that his work. And that has existed since the Renaissance: so we said that Dürer was the first artist because he was always the first to sign his works (monogram AD)

Mattel Learn Through Music

Can you get rich without working?


Doctor Philo is neither an economist nor a judge. He is interested or finance, or scams. He still
values of morality, or rather thinking about what the bases, ie ethics.
Is there a difference between shareholders and the crooks? If we political bias aside, the question worth asking.
Suppose one who works enriched through this: that enrichment has a cause, it is precisely the production of something through work.
Now ask what defines the scam: they say that it is unjust enrichment. That is clear.
So what about those who lend money in return for a rent (or buy a share of a company in return for interest and dividends).
Two possibilities:
- is estimated that in a society market, where anything can become a commodity - including money. Like selling money makes little sense, it can be any good to alienate others by cons part of compensation. The worker rents his arms, the capitalist rents his safe. Suppose we
objects that merit alone can justify the enrichment, and the rich has none. Either is precisely when the trader who merits it is necessary to recognize and reward it accordingly. This does not condemn any enrichment finance.
What stronger proof of this that the parable talents (Matthew 25:14 - 30 see text attached), which shows that there is a holiness to grow well: good servants - the ancestors of Jerome Kerviel - have they done anything other than lend money to Bankers who have prospered? And what is their merit, they have not produced themselves. And what is the fault of the bad servant? "It you ought to have my money with the bankers, and in my coming I should have with regard to wear me " said the parable (Mt 25,27). ... "As to what unprofitable servant, cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth . "(Mt 25,30). Basically, even the Gospels recognize that there is merit to earn money without working, merit here is to discern good bankers and avoid Madoff.
- is estimated to trade money is immoral and must be Jewish or Lombard to make it bearable. The Church probably considering that the parable of the talents was by taking the first degree condemned throughout the Middle Ages to the loan interest. With one exception: when there was a risk of not recovering their money.
An example: you are a retailer of cloth from the 13th century and you arrive at a fair in Champagne. Here, you buy a lot of stuff from a wholesaler. But for this you need to borrow money because you do not. In the evening, having resold at a profit your merchandise, you render your loan plus the agreed interest. It is considered justified by the Church, because your landlord might lose everything if you were left with the cash or if you had died with her in a fire.
conclude: if the shareholder does not work, the less risk there to see his money go up in smoke in a stock market crisis or the bankruptcy of the company.
It is morally acceptable for him to be paid interest for participation.
The difficulty is the division between workers and shareholders. We keep repeating it, but what we often forget to say is that the problem is that capital accumulation and not work. I can lend a large sum of money, even at 5%, it will make a nice back end of the month. Now I am a worker, I can not - I will never - work more than 50 hours per week (after it is Gulag) and it is not with what I'll make a fortune.
After all, the good servants of the Gospel were not fortified with something other than the right to continue working for their master.
------------------------

Schedule - Gospel of Matthew XXV - 14-30

25.14 Mt. Because it will be like a man going on a long journey called his servants and delivered unto them his goods.
25.15 Mt. He gave one five talents, and another two, and another one, to each according to his ability, then he left immediately.
25.16 Mt. He who had received five talents went and argued, and won five others.
25.17 Mt. Similarly, one who had received two, gained other two.
25.18 Mt. But he who had received one, went off, dug in the ground and hid his master's money.
25.19 Mt. Long after, the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them.
25.20 Mt. And he who had received five talents came and introduced five other talents, saying, Lord, you gave me five talents: behold that I have gained five more.
25.21 Mt. His master said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter into the joy of your master.
25.22 Mt. He who had received two talents came and said: Lord, you gave me two talents: behold that I have gained two more.
25.23 Mt. His master said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter into the joy of your master.
25.24 Mt. He who had received the one talent came also, saying, Lord, I know you're a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and pick up where you do not spread;
25.25 Mt. so I got scared and I hid your talent in the earth; here it is, you have what is yours.
25.26 Mt. But his master answered him bad and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I did not shed;
25.27 Mt. Then you ought to put my money to the bankers, and on my return I should have received with interest what is mine.
25.28 Mt. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents.
25.29 Mt. For to every one who has, and he shall have abundance: but whosoever hath not, we will remove even what he seems.
25.30 Mt. As for this worthless servant, cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

See also Quote of the Day January 23, 2006