One
adverse effect of intensive development and thorough specialization
within different areas of expertise, is that people, in their quality
of experts, sometimes consider matters entirely within their
respective areas of expertise.
Not seldom are the most passionate people among
them so fully absorbed by the intricacies of their area of expertise
– a world on its own – that they sometimes overlook the
large-scale and long-term effects their pursuits might have on other
areas of expertise, society, and the whole of the world. This is a
fatal error.
The scientist who invented the combustion
engine was no doubt amazed by his own achievement and its wide array
of implications. Experts in every field, be it industry,
transportation, navigation, robotics, … all had a use for it. Only
after the invention had been fully integrated into most every facet
of our world, did we consider the effects exhaust fumes have on our
health and environment.
Polystyrene is another example. Seventy-five
years after its invention, it is now found in the food chain,
impossible to remove, harming everyone's health. Within that
time-frame, surely a safe alternative could have been found.
Was there really not one expert able to foresee
these things? Did no one have vision that reached beyond the euphoria
that accompanies a new invention?
Passion is a requisite to become an expert, but
passion is inebriating and can lead to a lack of sobriety. A too
narrow or too complete immersion in one’s area of expertise has
people overlook how things are connected to the outside world,
leading to sometimes disastrous results.
Furthermore, the mechanisms that interconnect
any specific area of expertise with the whole of our world, tend to
operate subtly, quietly and slowly – making them hard to spot, but
not entirely imperceptible, nor unpredictable.
A strong holistic view, that emphasizes the
correlation between areas of expertise and our entire world, is
mandatory to guarantee that any development will not unwittingly end
up harming humanity, as it did in the examples above.
The phenomenon of over-focusing on one’s own
area of expertise can also be found in the art world. In recent
decades many experts have begun to see the field of the arts as an
experimental laboratory where anything is permitted and should be
permitted. Their reasoning is that art is harmless and fun and could
not possibly have a negative impact.
But art does not exist within a vacuum. It is
promoted, exhibited, sold, adored. Though the monetary value that is
attributed to art remains a subject of scrutiny because part of it
depends on clever marketing and even straw-man techniques, it is much
harder to negate the role art plays on account of being adored.
There is no denying that mankind admires its
arts. The more mankind looks up to a piece of art, the more we can
say that it is art. If man doesn’t look up to a piece of art, it is
fair to say that it is not art, or bad art. Perhaps one could define
art as the products a civilization admires the most.
There are three facets to this admiration. The
first is a comparative aspect, relating to the intensity of
preferring one piece over many others (the matter of perceived
quality). The second is appeal in terms of the number of people it
appeals to (its popularity). The third aspect pertains to whether a
specific artwork's admiration can stand the test of time.
By mere virtue of receiving admiration, art
possesses a culturally leading role. Psychologists have observed
that man adjusts his actions toward that what he admires. Art
operates in a similar manner. The greater the admiration, the more a
person will absorb from a piece of art, change his viewpoint and his
understanding of the world. Thus, he is transformed.
This, is the power of art.
It is most blatantly observable during puberty,
but it is a mechanism that remains – in tempered ways – operative
throughout all our lives.
As
is well known in history, people with ulterior motives have used this
transformative power of art also for political purposes. This reached
deplorable peaks in the mass propaganda put out by both European and
Asian communists and Europe's fascists in the 20th
Century. These groups intentionally used art as a means to amass
worldly power, wage wars or even take out entire layers of society.
Though it is a negative example, it illustrates the transformative
power of art. Would Mao or Hitler have been equally successful
without the arts? The music, literature and imagery created a culture
and environment that greatly facilitated the realization of their
agenda.
Just a few decades earlier, the horrors of the
first World War had dealt the Europeans’ self-image a fatal blow.
In reaction to that, artists themselves threw out any ambition they
might have had towards the well-being of man: Dadaists, and others,
wished to showcase the stupidity and absurdities inherent of mankind.
This idea – criticizing, expressing disgust, shocking and
ridiculing one’s own species – resonates to this day at the core
of so called “contemporary” art.
Even though these artists’ sentiments are
somewhat understandable in the context of history, such a course of
action can’t be called constructive. Naturally, they considered
their actions to be breaking new ground and developing their area of
expertise, yet in essence, they were sublimating – both in terms of
content and execution – a sense of defeatism, rather than offering
solutions. Defeatism contributes very little to the well being of any
civilization or individual for that matter. Psychologically,
defeatism is the antithesis of development.
But it is a much more serious issue than simply
a philosophical one. Developmental psychology concluded that
incessant criticizing coupled with a constant exposing of weaknesses
and stupidities, is the worst way to rear a human psyche. Now that
happens to be exactly what art does: rearing our psyche, shaping our
vision. Children who have been reared in such negative ways grow up
to be unhappy and are prone to develop mental illness.
Nearly every art academy today is teaching
their students to be ‘critical’, but it is an approach that is
psychologically ineffective at fostering true development.
We artists need to become aware of the
psychological impact our art will have – in the long run – on the
self-image of a people or a civilization, for people will absorb what
we present them and be transformed by that in turn. We can never lose
sight of the fact that the arts, being a recipient of admiration, are
a shaping factor for our society. People make art, art creates a
culture, culture shapes a society, and a society produces a certain
type of people – that’s a frightening responsibility when you
think of it. This mechanism will continue to operate regardless of
the artist's agenda, regardless of whether there is an agenda at all.
But none of that is taken into consideration in
the art world nowadays: it's innovation for the sake of innovation,
development for the sake of development, smashing barriers for the
sake of smashing barriers. It has reached a level where much of it
has become a pointless affair to the outsiders: mankind at large.
Art is made mainly for the experts: artists,
critics and philosophers, dealers and collectors, but audiences have
shrunk until only the experts remained, the only ones left able to
relate to the next new thing. But even their admiration exists often
solely for the sake of their field of expertise (e.g. collectors
buying art as an investment rather than out of heart-felt admiration,
philosophers praising art because it fits their theories rather than
because it has the potential to augment or safeguard mankind’s
well-being, etc.).
The notion that for art to be adored by society
at large, it would have to be corny or commercial, is incorrect.
People need a reason to look up to art, and
that reason needs to be relevant to all, not just to a handful of
experts. If art truly succeeds in fostering the well-being of mankind
and civilization – or even increase it – it will naturally have a
wide appeal and will be cherished and adores. It will have a positive
effect on our culture, our civilization and even the quality of our
society. It will be grand. This art will be held in high esteem by
all layers of society, not just a handful of experts, because
everyone will be able to relate to it. Such art will forever remain
relevant as it is linked to our well-being, man’s only never-ending
concern.
A holistic take on art furthermore imposes
demands on artists, art philosophers and art critics that far
transcend the boundaries of their respective areas of expertise and
go straight to what is essential: improving and safeguarding
mankind's well-being. Development which does not contribute to this
goal, is no true development, it is a failed experiment at best, a
disaster at worst.
A holistic view is quintessential to ensure
development guarantees our well-being. A sound holistic view will
foster a dialog between experts form all sort of areas of expertise
(spirituality, arts, psychology, sociology, ecology, philosophy,
medicine, sports, business, military, government...). This will
contribute to experts being broad-minded in both vision and heart,
and enable them to create a culture that has the ability to nourish,
strengthen and lighten the human heart and truly advance mankind's
well-being.
©Wim Van Aalst
