HOME | DD
anastasiyacemetery — problems with egoists
Published: 2013-09-15 17:03:26 +0000 UTC; Views: 6523; Favourites: 217; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Когда гуляешь по улицам, а впереди тебя....Related content
Comments: 33
wow... so threatening gun-violence is not egotistical - but smoking tobacco is? You want to force your will on someone else with a loaded weapon, and you think puffing a few breaths of smoke is egotistical?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
wow, you think that it's not a cry despair but systematic habbit? Yep, many people don't use brains...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's not entirely about the egoism since the egoism implies a "choice". The problem lies in the addiction, which is a "must". It is a very common misunderstanding - the smokers are not a "bad" persons, they are simply ill. Which is why the social campaigns against the tobacco are so naive and ineffective - you can't cure the illness with the billboard or TV ad, no matter how much money will you put in it. The nicotine is a very strong drug, in many addiction strength lists on top or close to heroine or crack. The addicted is not thinking all by himself and it's far from beeing a matter of a pure egoism. However I admit that it is still frustrating to inhale the fumes. And I know it even better than a casual non-smoker, since I quit the cigs after few years of heavy (really heavy) smoking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It not the question of the disease, it is a question of concern for others. If I am sick, I do not think that my disease must hurt to others. Otherwise I'm just sick on head )
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course that it's bad when the disease affect the people around. But here's the thing - while it is bad, the urge to satisfy the addiction is often stronger than a sense or conscience. It's as much justified to bring the egoism here as to the alcoholic that is geting wasted every damn evening, while his children are starving. Is it immoral? Of course, but he's way beyond the point when he can choose the morals, the urge caused by the changes in his brain (and you virtualy can't fight the damage in your brain with the will or morals) is stronger than any awareness.
It doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't do so, but it changes the fact that the egoism is not a factor here. Vast majority of smokers are normal people and are able to concern people around them in the other fields. But when it cames to the addiction - their brain tells them "I'm hungry, feed me". You should treat them as the people with diminished capacity. Which is why I can't agree for bringing the egoism here, because it's far more serious than a simple case of egoism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes, but looking at the fact that every fifth person in the crowd is with a cigarette, I do not believe that they are all in a hurry, that would not be able to step aside and smoke.They smoke on children in the crowd. And here at work people do not go out, they are smoke on the stairs, because they just don't care. This is just unconsciousness, than most people live, do they smoke or not.
Sorry for my English
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd rather guess that not everywhere smoking is considered to be a desease. Both physical and a mental. And that is why it's not a good thing to bring the egoism (or other morals) into play - it's not about the egoism at all. These people are sick, and as long as they are not aware of that simple fact, nothing will change. In Poland, even though it's improving, it is still vastly believed to be a part of a life-style rather than the actual addiction. People blabbering something like "I smoke because I like" rubbish instead of "I smoke because I'm addicted" are everywhere. I don't know how is it in Russia, but I guess it's similar.
The situation have been changing since people were convinced to look at the cigs as the illness that requires the cure, not a part of their choice. When they had noticed that they did not choose anything to begin with. In addition to that, authorities pushed the law to ban the smoking in public areas (private properties like pubs, bars and restaurants alike), hospitals, schools etc with a financial penalties for those who break this ban. From time to time even the idea appears to ban the tobacco completely. And it works. It needs time of course, it needs effort and sometimes lobbying on your deputies, but it works. Bringing the moral issues were never as efficient as simply stating the facts, with a little help from the law. Since this approach was introduced in Poland (after the several Western countries) the impact of smokers on non-smokers was greately reduced, and the numbers of smokers began to decrease. Inventions like e-cigaretes also helps to fight the problem.
Cheers and good luck
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
point not in smoking, don't you understand me. The point in care. if these people are so ill that they do not see others around - then they must be placed in a madhouse.
selfishness is a disease developed in its sole resolution.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I have found a decent article about the topic, it might help you understand the core of the problem. It's long and in English, but worth the time.
science.howstuffworks.com/life…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In a matter of fact most of the addicted people somewhat belongs to the mental treatment. Especially in most severe cases. That's exactly my point - it's not selfishness on their part, at least not in every case.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
controlled about the others. This is the psychology of the herd - if the majority does it means that I can
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I, after the neurobiologists, simply noticed that it's not only the attitude based problem. But I've been writing this several times already and we are circling around the same phrases over and over again. If you wish to believe otherwise - so be it. Cheers
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I understand this problem, I explain that it is not at that stage that it cannot be controlled
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
from my understanding you'd like repress peoples over active egos?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just wanted people thinking not only about theirselves or their life's worth is nothing
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmmm, I'm no philosophist but I think I understand what you did here (or not).
On one side the "Pedestrian", you could say, is walking behind the "Smoker" who is disgruntled by the Smoker's lack of common courtesy to put away the cigarette from the Pedestrian himself and others.
But on the other side you can see that the Pedestrian is a gamer who is into the first person shooter genre by the way he is holding the rifle and the very video game like cross-hair (somewhat) centered on the "screen", this indicate that the Pedestrian might not have even seen the horrors of war.
And as you can see, the Smoker has his arm covered in blood telling us that he had ended a life or more sometime ago, this also might indicate that he might use to be a soldier who served in the front lines of war. And from what I know, many soldiers who had seen plenty of action on the field can have PTSD after seeing things that might haunt them for the rest of their lives, and one way to relief stress is by smoking.
Now we have some wanna-be solider telling an actual soldier who only wants peace to bugger off.
So in the end, I'm not sure who should I be angry or sad at. The Pedestrian or The Smoker, The Gamer or The Solider.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
no, all is more more simply. Not about any soldiers
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Eh, at least I gave it a shot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Awesome take on this beautiful piece of art!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
sometimes meaning has it's "beyond" what you have rep'd is even beyond that. That is why this is great. a Look forward at it's least, and at it's greatest at that. niceness
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love what you're expressing here, I feel I can relate to it. I feel like I'm there. I also love the fact that this piece uses a gaming reference prominently to express an idea, that's a very noteable, modern touch. It separates this digital painting from others.
But I do have a few criticisms - which I hope you'll take well!
Primarily, the dialogue and the way you've chosen to represent it. The presentation lacks consistency. I assume you're trying to be grammatically correct by starting with a capital letter, but if that's what you're doing, you need to follow it up with a full stop/period at the end. Either that or use all lower case letters. The font is also a very common one, which kills the immersion somewhat. The typography is my biggest complaint.
Secondly, the actual line of dialogue is a big problem for what you're trying to convey here. By using a first-person view, you're turning the viewer into an observer within the world of your painting. That's a good thing - but you spoil it by associating dialogue with the viewer, thereby forcing a personality onto the observer.
Thirdly, I feel that the derogatory term 'stupid' diminishes the effect. It imposes aggression onto the viewer, where as you're trying to convey a sense of aggression towards the nameless smoker instead.
Perhaps removing the dialogue altogether and simply naming the work 'Let Me Breathe, Egoist' would've worked better.
Nonetheless, I love what you've achieved here. It's a very atmospheric and intelligent idea, I just feel it could've been executed better. It loses a lot of artistic merit that it could've easily had.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ok, thanks )
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
great looking work, reminds me of the style the game "betrayer" is going for. And yeah, I dislike it that most smokers just don't seem to care about other people inhaling their smoke, it is pretty selfish :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Плюсмного. Я бы только оружие выбрала более мощное.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0