They are all relevant.

And I’ve been very consistent actually.

It’s not uncommon though, your complaint. It’s just that I can only think in pictures; not words, that’s all.

The point is, Oskar, what’s your point? You’ve been consistently inconsistent with the contents of this essay. Every one of your points had nothing to do with the essay at all; even your quote from my article was used in an irrelevant fashion. So, truly, what are you trying to address in this monologue?

I use ‘entrepreneurship’ very loosely in this article. I wasn’t referring to businessmen; I’m referring to trend-setters, to leaders, to multitalented, flexible (to a degree) people. Coincidentally, most businessmen have these traits. But so do philosophers, artists, etc. I’m referring to everyone who fit my definition of ‘entrepreneurship[‘, not the conventionally accepted form of it.

Did I say anything about happiness? No. So what were you trying to address in your second block?

Was I giving instructions? No. The idea of this article is to show what is an entrepreneur, what defines one, how he creates knowledge, how he markets this knowledge, how he contributes to the economy, and so on. So what’s your point on instructions?

Art? I spoke of it? I only touched very briefly on it, so much so that this part could do without the reference to art. So what’s your point? What does that artistic reference have to do with this essay?

The latter styles were based on objectivity in graphic design as were many Modernist projects.

Modernism was no doubt idealistic in its intentions as well, but it had become the ‘status quo’ so to speak, and was choking out other alternative views of design.

To go back to your queries on entrepreneurship, have you asked yourself what was it that made entrepreneurs successful in Singapore or elsewhere?

Isn’t it because they were disruptive?

How else could they gain market-share?

Tell me how many Singaporeans would readily admit to the government that they are disruptive.

I should know. I was rejected by MINDEF for the position of Innovation Activist for being ‘disruptive’.

But I was trained in Art, under the Art Elective Programme from high school to JC.

So I don’t care.

How many papers have the academic written about these entrepreneurship stuff?

How many ‘get rich and successful’ books would Singaporeans have read?

At the same time, how many big-name entrepreneurs (besides Sim Wong Hoo) do we have?

There’s a lot of reading one can do on any certain topic. And you could always keep reading and reading and reading.

From another perspective, it’s just you preferring that others tell you what to do: ‘Give me step-by-step instructions! Like if I get 4As then I can apply for a gahmen scholarship!’

As for why mention Art:

Do ask yourself what is to value of Art to me?

Unlike entrepreneurial activities, Art doesn’t seem to have any value, correct?

So have you asked yourself: ‘What does it take to be an artist?’

And have you wondered really: ‘Doesn’t being entrepreneurial involve being like an artist?’

Especially when there are so many more failures for any one success.

Art is thematically ‘useless’. But if you won’t try the useless, presently-unworthy-and-silly stuff, how do you know if it’s not going to… in the near future, be useful?

You wrote, ‘They do something simply for its sake.’

Now go and read the Departmental Doctrine for Cranbrook Academy of Art’s Department of 2D Design.

I don’t understand why people talk so much for.

Singaporeans may not be a happy lot.

But they are contented enough to let others (like the govt) plan things out for them as well as tell them what to do (or not to do).

So they deserve their unhappiness because they refuse to do anything about it.

The aesthetic emotion we feel before a man-made object – such as the white bird with which I started – is a derivative of the emotion we feel before nature. The white bird is an attempt to translate a message received from a real bird. All the languages of art have been developed as an attempt to transform the instantaneous into the permanent. Art supposes that beauty is not an exception – is not in despite of – but is the basis for an order.

[...]

The notion that art is the mirror of nature is one that only appeals in periods of scepticism. Art does not imitate nature, it imitates a creation, sometimes to propose an alternative world , sometimes simply to amplify, to confirm, to make social the brief hope offered by nature. Art is an organized response to what nature allows us to glimpse occasionally. Art sets out to transform the potential recognition into an unceasing one. It proclaims man in the hope of receiving a surer reply … the transcendental face of art is always a form of prayer.