Skip to main content

70 years old, but as relevant as ever. 😞
This Restaurant Serves Only One Person is a 1953 caricature by Yuliy Ganf that appeared in the Soviet magazine, Krokodil. The caricature shows a restaurant in which а slew of busy businessmen-waiters are eagerly serving a soldier (with "War" written on his back) piles of money. Meanwhile, at the other tables in the restaurant sit representatives of "Health Care," "Schools," "Libraries," and "Art." They'll go hungry and won't be receiving any money, though, as the restaurant only serves one customer - war. This powerful piece of political satire gives a universal and timeless critique of government's enormous military spending. That the Soviet Union consistently spent a greater share of its GDP on its military than did the United States does slightly take away from the message, though. Nevertheless, there's a reason this work of art resonates with so many people around the world to this day - it reveals a deeply held feeling many of us have about misplaced government priorities.

reshared this

in reply to Critical Cupcake

Christian
Christian
• •

Order:

- Healthcare
- Education
- Science
- War (Defense)
- Arts.

No Health, nothin else matters.
No Education, No science down the road.
No science, nothing matter.
No defensive capabilites, russia.
Arts, meh.

in reply to Christian

eyrea
eyrea
• •

@chris No arts, no cartoon.

No arts, no explaining the rest.

No arts, none of the metaphorical reasoning required for scientific and especially medical advances.

Instead, you get the simplistic, immediate-results thinking that results in "arts, meh".

There is nothing shameful or time-wasting about a well-rounded education.

@Christian
in reply to eyrea

Christian
Christian
• •

@eyrea
I can't live without proper Healthcare.
I can't live or get a good job without education.
I can't work without the fruits of Science.
Without People protecting me I would probably be dead.

I live without arts just fine.
My house is also heated by science. Not arts.

@eyrea
in reply to Christian

eyrea
eyrea
• •

@chris Everything you just mentioned was also brought to you by the arts. We categorize them to make them manageable, but they're all interconnected.

It's the same thing as if someone tried to claim medicine was possible without science, just because some medical methods were discovered before modern science.

That you're not even understanding this shows how much you need the arts.

@Christian
in reply to eyrea

Christian
Christian
• •

@eyrea Saying "Physics is arts" shows how desperatly art people are trying to say "People need us!".

I am sure Isaac Newton had a lot of help from modern expressionist dancers while he discovered the Newton Laws.

@eyrea
in reply to Christian

Strypey
Strypey
• •

@chris
> I am sure Isaac Newton had a lot of help from modern expressionist dancers...

Well no, but he did have a lot help from philosophy, without which people like him wouldn't have been able to come up with the cluster of ideas that gave us the scientific method. Philosophy is an art not a science.

I can see how reducing the broad term 'arts' to 'creative hobbies' serves your argument, but it's a strawman.

@eyrea @CriticalCupcake

@eyrea @Critical Cupcake @Christian
in reply to Strypey

Christian
Christian
• •

@strypey @eyrea Likewise your doctrine of "Everything is - thanks to art" is faulty as well.

By your definition I would agree that we need art. As long as it enables Science and the rest to do their work.

The rest is not required.

@Strypey @eyrea
in reply to Christian

Strypey
Strypey
• •

@chris
> Likewise your doctrine of "Everything is - thanks to art" is faulty as well

How so?

> I would agree that we need art. As long as it enables Science and the rest to do their work. The rest is not required.

I see. How would you distinguish the arts you consider necessary from the ones you don't? Given that their contributions to "science and the rest" is generally only clear in hindsight.

@eyrea @CriticalCupcake

@eyrea @Critical Cupcake @Christian
⇧