What is the Role of an Artist?

Art is often viewed as a mirror, reflecting the beautiful hues created by the universe’s masterful hand.  Art is said to be man’s imitation or interpretation of a world beyond our own understanding.  From a historical standpoint, art has been the most effective means at deciphering the voices of civilizations that have long since faded away.   Even in its most primitive forms, art has been a practical, social commentary used to illustrate the inner workings of a particular culture. In some cases, art has been the only documentation we currently have of the minds of intellects, philosophers, scientists, and craftsmen of the past.  If one were to fully adopt the philosophy of Aristotle then I would imagine that this summary would be an adequate depiction of what art must be.  It was Aristotle who first attributed the tendency of art in its original form and its imitation of life to the natural human characteristic to mimic others as a primary source of learning. This observation is true, however it does not account for the artistry that extends the boundaries of one of the worst words known to man, “normal.”  With this theory, the works of artists such as the painter Pablo Picasso and science fiction novelist H.G. Wells, author of “The Time Machine” and “The War of the Worlds” would have been deemed worthless even though we have clearly seen the affects of their work on the masses.  When assessing the role of art as it relates to the past, we can easily see the gravity of its importance. And although we may not see it through the same lens, art is equally as important to our society today.  The question is then, what role do the artists themselves pose as benefactors within the greater context of society?

The relationship society has with its artists is quite interesting. A relationship I would characterize as historically “love, hate.” Good art has a degree of shock value that can go one of two ways, either the audience will appreciate the uniqueness of the work and praise the artist, or the audience will not be ready to fully comprehend the artist’s experience. Hence the term that an artist was “before their time.” Work from artists such as Doménikos Theotokópoulos aka El Greco was shunned, criticized, and ignored while he was living because society, at the time, found his work too confusing to understand.  Whereas Jean Michel Basquiat received an ample amount of fame during his short time on earth for work many consider controversial.

What separates humans from other animals is that humans have the ability to adapt through socializing. The manners in which we do so becomes our culture our shared ideology become our society.  For instance, an individual that makes a new tool will show others how to do the same through language. The style of the tool and language they use become a representation of their culture.  Man continues to evolve through this process of social adaptation where the more we produce and learn from its production, the more our brains develop. There is truth to this concept, but is only a surface level explanation for a much more complex reality. If this were completely true, then I would assume everyone in their respective culture would develop to be carbon copies of each other.  There is a certain innate uniqueness we possess as individuals within a society that allows us to analyze the surrounding environment differently than others. We are each malleable to the influences of our societies, but our differing perspectives give birth to artistic creation. Artists are what I suppose more vulnerable to these influences than others not only due to the public critique of work that carries pieces of their soul, but I would assume that they are also more vulnerable to life experiences as they happen. In order for someone to accurately convey an emotion through a vehicle of art, they must be fully cognizant of that emotion as they are experiencing it in order to transfer that feeling. This may be the reason why artists are, generally speaking, people who are flamboyant in personality and seem to deteriorate from the inside because of the difficulty they have of fitting in.  It is like watching a child trying to force a shaped, wooden block into the wrong opening. Society tries too often to force artists back into what is considered to be “normal” (there’s that word again) through closed-minded critiques, up until that wooden block chips or breaks.  Although Oscar Wilde enjoyed much of his success while he lived, once his reputation was unsympathetically defamed, his depression seemed to lead to his demise.  Depending on the political and social atmosphere at the time,

We are fairly knowledgeable about the Kurt Cobain affect that society can have on the mind of artists, but what about the ways society changes from art?  There is an immense power in art.  It extends past the casual museum painting contemplation and manifests itself in such phenomenon as the original radio broadcast of H.G. Wells’ “War of the Worlds” that sent American citizens into a frenzy, and D.W. Griffith’s troubling, racist masterpiece, “The Birth of a Nation” which created black stereotypes still reoccurring in media sources today.  To ethically critique art is to limit the restrictions on the artists’ autonomy and only judge the work based on aesthetics.  Limiting an artists’ autonomy can be seen as also limiting one’s creativity, not allowing them to fully develop can be derived from an inspired state. Plato, however, understood that power art has to influence behavior, and therefore declared it dangerous and in need of censorship.  His forward thinking essentially predicted the creation of media and propaganda.

Artists have one duty and that is to be true to themselves. We are all biological phenomena, never to be duplicated again. There is something intrinsically special to this notion.  Artistic autonomy therefore is important for the evolution of art to remain in tact. Plato was not crazy to imagine a society of citizens pacified by distractions however. When you have specific entities that control mass media, sadly this becomes inevitable. Art should not be owned or controlled.  If I were to make a prediction I would venture to say that if the citizens can find a way to maintain the freedom of the internet, we will then find ourselves submerged in a new age renaissance where the artistic genius of the common man are equally as powerful and accessible as the spoon fed advertisements we are bombarded with daily.

1 Abstract Idea

Is it possible for technology to surpass the natural evolution of the human race? These are questions that have commonly been raised in movies such as The Terminator, I, Robot, etc., but can a phenomenon like this actually happen?

There is a viral video that has recently spread amongst the nation of a 1-year old girl riffling through applications on an iPad. She maneuvers through the different screens effortlessly as if she has been using Apple products since the 1^st generation iPhone. Her father then sets a magazine in front of her to see how she reacts to a non-interactive “tablet.” His daughter grows increasingly frustrated as she tries to swipe and click the different advertisements to no avail. The video ends with the words “For my 1 year old daughter, an iPad is a magazine that does not work. It will remain so for her whole life. Steve Jobs has coded a part of her OS.”

Regardless of any physical human traits that may or may not be jeopardized by the advancement of technology, such as an entire new generation with eye problems and carpal tunnel, we now occupy an interesting moment in the history.  I like to think of this time in relation to the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell who deconstructed the notion of success as more than just hard work, but as a combination of a number of variables that act in one’s favor, specifically the idea of timing.  The older people that now run companies are now out of touch with this new, over stimulated generation of people. They are constantly trying to learn how we think, the ways we use social media, and essentially how to use the new gadgets that seem to be spit out by Apple and Android every minute. We are in an era of innovation where everyone born between the late 80s and early 90s are basically the last ones to have had a childhood highlighted by the use of the imagination. We were the last ones who were told more often than not to “Go outside and play” and explore the creative industries of our mind instead of having a parent set an iPad in our face.  The interesting thing that separates us from the generation prior to us is that we are still young enough to have a firm grip on the use and direction of technology in its current state. The movers and shakers of tomorrow will be the ones that will be able to utilize both the real world and the technological world effectively.  Am I the only one innately curious, yet slightly fearful of what tomorrow brings? A world completely obsessed with the imitation of life and nature instead of enjoying the real thing. A world where we have to take online classes to learn what it means to be human.

This is all speculation of course, but one thing that I realized is that in the age of information and technology, where you can ask your phone, “What is the meaning of life?” and your phone will answer you verbally in seconds, the term “survival of the fittest” has been transformed into the “survival of the least distracted.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXV-yaFmQNk

Make Me Do It!

After President Obama’s inauguration, Cornel West boisterously voiced how absolutely disgusted he was by the fact that Obama was sworn in with the late Martin Luther King Jr.’s bible.  With Black History Month quickly approaching, and America’s first African-American president getting sworn in to his second term on the same stage that MLK gave his “I Have a Dream Speech,” it only seemed fitting. Right? An event of this magnitude speaks to the resilience African-Americans have displayed after such a long history of being subjected to deplorable physical and mental conditions. Right?  What exactly was Cornell West so upset about?

Before I discuss Cornel West’s rant, I think that there is certainly a troubling view of Obama’s presidency. This view, to me, resembles that of a middle school or high school election when someone’s friend gets elected to office. The next day that kid expects the water fountains to overflow with soda, the termination of the teacher that gave them the failing grade in math, and for their friend to begin lobbying the principle to implement a new “No Homework” policy.  The heart of the friend, and the newly elected hall monitor breaks when they both learn the difference between what is known as an elected official and what we consider a caped crime fighter.  There are many systematic issues that currently exist in America which deserve focused scrutiny from America’s premiere decision makers.  Once Obama was elected it seemed as if most people expected him to cure America of all its ills. For a few months, “Obama” was a word many African-Americans thought could get them out of a speeding ticket and to many others, a word that exemplified a post racial society (whatever that means). This view of Obama’s position was misconstrued and idealized him as a savior instead of what he actually is, a catalyst for liberal change within a democratic society similar to other presidents in the past that demonstrated their openness to the outcries from the US citizens.  The savior view takes the self-accountability out of the public.  What good is a democratic society without self-accountability?  I do not mean the accountability that is shown by getting out to vote, but the kind of accountability that citizens show when they present their desires to their elected officials in the form of demands instead of questions.

Dr. West’s agitation was essentially that by President Barack Obama merging his presidency with the prophetic ideology of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Obama diluted the very messages that Dr. King fought and ultimately died for.  Dr. West stated that Dr. King fought against three specific crimes committed by the US.  One is a crime against humanity and is commonly know as the Jim Crow Laws, which were rules designed to segregate, humiliate, intimidate, and far too often included the lynching of black people.  The second was the war crime of carpet-bombing in Vietnam. Carpet bombs were a series of aerial attacks with unguided missiles over Vietnam that covered large selected areas of land. These attacks obliterated every inch of the selected areas, killing hundreds of innocent civilians and children in the process.  The third crime MLK fought against was poverty and homelessness, which is considered to be a crime against humanity when a nation is able to provide reasonable accommodations for each of its citizens.

I agree with Dr. West that MLK’s legacy has been egregiously diluted over the years, but I think that this is true for African-American history as a whole. The separation of Black History from American History is absurd in theory when they are, in essence, one and the same. MLK’s message specifically has been reduced to an echo of the “I Have a Dream” speech.  So, if Dr. West’s frantic outburst was about the fact that media now has a vehicle to fashion the message of MLK in a way that is more ABC Network instead of HBO, then I share his concern. However, Dr. West was not speaking to the media or the authors on history, he was directing his comments towards Barack Obama himself.  I have two issues with this intent.  The first is simple. Past whatever personal conflicts that Dr. West and Obama have developed over the years, Dr. West, as well as millions of other people of all races understand that if Dr. King had not displayed enough confidence to stand by the people, the people would not have enough confidence to stand by Obama.  A presidential inauguration for any person other than a white male is an inspiration in itself, whether that person is female, male, yellow, purple, etc.  My second issue is that I realized that this “hall monitor” complex has also gotten to our public intellectuals.  As the President of the United States, I believe that there is an immanent separation between the man (or woman) and the function of the job.  The people elect the candidate based on their favorable traits, but the mechanisms of the office do not easily allow that person to operate as he or she chooses.  If Obama were asked how he feels about the mass incarceration of African Americans and the correlations between the diminished rights of ex-convicts compared to that of blacks subjected to Jim Crow (see “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander), I would imagine a very strong degree of empathy.  Similarly, I’m sure President Warren G. Harding enjoyed an occasional glass of whisky during the prohibition era.  As a person, Obama may agree that the incarceration system needs to be completely reconstructed.  He may believe that individuals arrested for drug possession and drug abuse should be treated as health issues instead of criminal cases. He may also believe that the because of the gross disproportion of African-Americans in prison, a new racial caste system has been created within the last few decades. But it would not be a wise move for Obama, the elected official, to pass an executive order releasing convicted criminals into the general population.  Public Intellectuals, especially tenured professors at premiere universities such as Princeton, have the benefit of voicing their ideologies without the fear of hearing the phrase “you’re fired!” or in the case of Obama, impeached.  Barack Obama is the President of the United States, and like other presidents in the past there are policies that you can agree with and some you may not.  Many Americans are opposed to the drone attacks overseas that has been the cause of death for a number of US citizens.  However, some people find Obamacare a favorable new addition to the American lifestyle. 

Now, I am a novice historian at best, but I see a pattern in the ways most liberal policies were passed in America. The presidents are nothing more than the final step after the organized voice of the masses. For example, Fredrick Douglas was born a slave yet he learned how to read and write and escaped slavery, which was all illegal at the time and punishable by rather heinous methods. He became a great orator and became an instrumental figure in many abolitionist movements. Through continuous personal dialogue, Douglas greatly influenced the conscious of Abraham Lincoln in regards to the ways that blacks were treated. These conversations eventually helped inspire Lincoln’s decision to abolish slavery.  Their relationship, unusual in nature but great nonetheless, should have been included in the 2012 movie “Lincoln” for a more historically accurate depiction. If Ford Theatre can produce a two-hour, two-man play on their conversation alone, I think Douglas could have at least had a cameo. I digress.  The common theme underlying movements such as Civil Rights, Women’s Liberation, and even Al Capone with his organized crime rings during prohibition, is that the voice of the people must be bold, unified, and speak loudly for anything to get done in this country. 

Black Public Intellectuals seem to hold themselves to a high esteem simply because they were once in close proximity to the civil rights leaders of the past. If anything, these men and women should utilize their position to mobilize the nation to fix whatever issue they feel deserves the most scrutiny. Pointing fingers towards Obama will not solve the problem of mass incarceration and neither will hosting small debates about the subject.  The reason why I call Obama a catalyst for liberal change within a democratic society is because there are certain moments in political history when it is apparent that the person in power is liberal, and if given the opportunity to make a tough decision, they will lean towards the left. This is true for Supreme Court Justices as well, such as the fairly liberal rulings of  Justice Earl Warren who served from 1953 until his retirement in 1969.  One of his court's most famous decisions was Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.  Dr. Cornel West should not frown upon this moment in history, but capitalize on its full potential. In fact, he should heed the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt who stated, after listening to the arguments presented by a group of activists whom wanted his legislative support, “You’ve convinced me. Now go out and make me do it.”

http://youtu.be/FBXb5oHXTv8