[asdf1234tx]

Live performance art can indeed impact time resources. But so can other kinds of art at intensive levels.

Indeed I have known, as you call them "static" artists, and "dynamic" artists (poor dividing lines for this conversation), that were so enveloped that they had no time for a day job, career, marriage, or children.

But I know far more artists that have plenty of time for additional choices, such as job, career, marriage, children, leisure, etc.

Back to the original point, I don't find myself engaging readily with people who don't know, or understand, profoundly difficult physical labor, and profoundly difficult mental labor.

Both are character shaping. So an artist who is lacking one or the other, I don't find accessible. It doesn't mean that we are all busy all the time, working and thinking hard, it just means that at some point in life, having gone through that deeply impacts a person.

Throw in a little philosophy, introspection, and reflection, and those kinds of artists can produce static or dynamic (to use your words) art that really pulls one in, and demands engagement.

[839083]

I didn’t like “static” and “dynamic” but they were the best words I could come up with quickly. Mostly I mean that the performative arts involve a physical skill component that will be hard to develop without the sheer hours. Introspection and character-building are also necessary but less primary, and the threshold for technical skill rises as the amount of originality required decreases. Compare standards for classical music and ballet to jazz and modern dance. The expectations for a top violinist or ballerina are essentially those of a figure skater or gymnast.

None of this is to say painting and sculpting don’t require skill, but I’m not sure Picasso or Van Gogh would’ve been able to show their genius if they had to be Bob Ross and do it live every time.