science and art
Locked
 
|
-- Thank you so much for your comments. I would like to converse with serveral of them but to avoid confusion will do so one by one. I hope I have wresteled my server mail client into cooperating better with identifing my email. Steve wrote, "I am
irritated, no /maddened/, by the illusion of this struggle. My explanation of
this is that Science(tm) and Art(tm) are, in fact, in a deadlock. (tm)
implying Trademark, I agree except with your inference that the competition is not real. It is indeed real in the marketplace and political landscape and the media. That is why rethinking and creating a new economic paradigm has been central to my own work. But it is not simply that art should get a bigger slice of the pie and science a smaller, or the inverse, it is that currently the health of one depends on the reduced viabillity of the other or others and that the viability of each is dependent on the successful selling of one over the other. Most artists give their labor away. I don't know that that can be said of scientists. May I be so bold as to suggest that most of those that would call themselves scientists and that participate in Friam make a living doing science. Most artist no matter what or where they participate in American culture or elsewhere do not make a living doing art. Does that matter? You bet it does. How can the role of art and artists be understood when it is so little valued. Of course there are a few artists that very successful financially and otherwise. That is not to say that many scientists are not un and undervalued and that this experience is not as much of one of loss and despair. But I even heard at a recent lecture sponsored by the Santa Fe Institute (I will try to get the exact event) that a study had been undertaken which showed that if you paid young people to make art (which they had been doing before without pay) they were inclined to stop making art. Of course the Santa Fe Institute as a whole may not share this view but this is a very toxic idea and reinforces the idea that when artist receive money for their work they, or much worse, their artistic drive is somehow ruined...especially coming from someone making a living from doing this research and telling you about it. I think this is a kind of humiliation...a subject I have been studing recently. This keeps artists and artmaking in a dependent, weakened and marginalizied relationship to life, after all sooner or later most of us have to figure out and spend most of our time putting a roof over our heads and feeding ourselves and our children. Further by more hightly valuing the artefacts that artists produce as opposed to their art(making), creativty, artists often confine themselves to a range of subject matter that is outside the realm of activites that could be more economically viabile and end up trying to make artefacts that will sell which may have little to do with their art(making) insight and power. But to me what is so troubling is that despite our finicial situation most of us feel unappreciated and un or undervalued. No mere redistribution of financial resources will completely solve this despair whether this redistribution is possible or not. We must have a realignment of what people value and what they are rewarded for. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |