I'm all for a coup, but only because it means we might have to invade Austin and see Corwood in person.

Some of us didn't wait for a coup!

---

But don't you have to compare the number of artists total to the number of vets or government inspectors or physicians or guards, to draw a conclusion about the percentage of each who commits suicide?

If I understand what you're asking, the UK study did that; it shows both the suicides as an exact number and as a proportional ratio.

But ideally, sure. There's no massive international database for cause of death by profession; the studies I linked to are the closest I could find, and they're for the population within a particular country over a decade or two (if I remember right). My only point, I think, is that the fact that various health care professionals and blue-collar workers have higher rates suggests to me that 1) the suicide rate might not be the best indicator of mental illness for a group; or 2) people identified as artists are not more prone to mental illness than people in other professions; or 3) -- and this is where my money is -- both.

Writers and Alcohol (and Madness).

I stumbled upon that when I was looking for data last night. But this

a 15-year study of 30 creative writers on the faculty of the Iowa Writers' Workshop

did not strike me as a particularly representative sample. Of, well, any population outside the Iowa Writers' Workshop.

I am not arguing that there aren't plenty of tortured artists. But, by virtue of what they do, they're more likely to express how they feel tortured. If those feelings weren't common, but unexpressed, by the non-artsy population, why would we find it meaningful? When I was a sulky teen, I wasn't reading Plath & Parker going, "Gee, I wonder what it's like to feel that way? Oh well, I'm off to skip among the daisies! Tra la, isn't life grand?"

one of the factors that hasn't been mentioned yet is the crucial question of *Who* Is Entitled To Define Art, And Why.

Everyone. That's why this is one of my favorite bullshit topics. It doesn't really matter, so the definitions I disagree violently with are still interesting. (Scola made an axis! Neat.)

---

Scola made an axis!

An axis of cool.

---

An axis of cool.

I always knew that coolness was fascist.

And Godwin's Law shall be invoked.

---

Are you saying an axis with Roy Orbison at the top is Evil?

---

Are you saying an axis with Roy Orbison at the top is Evil?

No, just making a lame joke about the Axis powers (circa WWII). I think I managed to block Shrub's invocation of "axis" temporarily.

---

one of the factors that hasn't been mentioned yet is the crucial question of *Who* Is Entitled To Define Art, And Why.

Everyone. That's why this is one of my favorite bullshit topics.

Yes, but not everyone agrees that Everyone is entitled to define art. Many people, in fact, don't think that Everyone is entitled to define art; they think that only *they* (and the people who agree with them) are entitled to define art, and the rest of Everyone (i.e., who don't agree with them) are ignant plebians.

---

Absolutely. It is clear that Precious Moments devotees don't define art.

---

I'd calll Precious Moments figurines "art" by the definition I tossed out a couple days ago. They're definitely created for a non-functional purpose.

But my definition is decidedly intent-based, very broad, and definitely allows for "bad art."

---

You know, when you are 500+ posts behind in Movies, it's probably best to just give up.

And, as in all things, I am the One True Authority on What Is Art? (Which does include many functional things, but not Precious Moments).

---