"That's crap," "I don't get it," and Other Things People Say When Looking at Art

Begin rant--

Having perused many art galleries in my day, I have had the opportunity to not only view some great works of art, but also inadvertently witness the reactions to art that many individuals have.  In fact, there have been occasions when I've spent far more time observing unwary museum-goers instead of focusing on the art that I came to see. 

Many people seem to have found their way into the museum out of an obligatory sense to participate in a cultural experience but, unfortunately, do not necessarily have the tools to help them fully participate in that experience.  I've often wondered why this is.  Every adult there, presumably, has obtained an education, probably public, and were compulsorily exposed to some form of an art program.  It would be reasonable to assume that they were given the tools to understand not only mimetic forms of art but the more abstract and even non-objective forms as well.  However, the truth of the matter is that most art programs don't cover how to observe and interpret the visual arts in as much of an in-depth a manner as, say, the schools cover mathematics or reading.  Viewing art, particularly modern and post-modern art, is as much an exegetical experience as reading works of literature; however, the average 27.2 seconds most people spend on viewing a piece of art doesn't lend itself to establishing a meaningful relationship with what the artist has created.

I think that many people don't spend much time viewing modern and post-modern art for numerous reasons, but one of the primary reasons is that they simply may not know how to.  People identify with what they can recognize--in art, this often means that naturalistic and representational works often win favor because the content is readily identifiable.  Ask people what their favorite artists are and they'll comeback with Monet, van Gogh, Rembrandt, Renoir etc.  Colors that excite and objects or people that are well rendered are never out of favor *cough*Kincaide*cough* There is certainly nothing wrong with such work but it closes off a means of experiencing the world that can only be communicated via the means, methods, and materials that many post-modern artists utilize.  It is akin to not reading any novel produced after, say, 1890.  Yes, there was some fantastic literature produced prior to 1890, but a tremendous amount of significant work has been crafted afterwards as well.

"Pssst. Maybe if we stand here long enough people will think we understand this."

Art speaks about our community, our society, and our world in a way that words cannot.  I think that somehow along the way this has been forgotten or deliberately dismissed--although I can't say why, well I guess I could try but it would take more space than I have here.  It is certainly not uncommon for art to be viewed as expendable within the confines of budgetary considerations.  Art is simply not viewed to be as practical as infrastructure or defense and when viewed in an either/or manner then, yes, it does make sense that art is lower on the hierarchy of needs. 

What I advocate is an integral and symbiotic view of art.  Many indigenous cultures do not have a separate word for "art" as what they create is a necessary extension of their social identity not something that is "separate" from them.  I highly doubt that we in American culture will ever view art as an integral expression of our identity since our tendency to compartmentalize is well established, but certainly steps can be taken to integrate art into our cultural milieu.

So, how can this be accomplished?  Through education.  It will be a slow process but many art education programs are currently promoting the arts more aggressively than before and, more importantly, stressing the critical analysis skills necessary to transcend the traditional barriers that existed between academic subjects.  I think this facilitates--or will come to facilitate--a perspective of the arts that is more flattering than we have had in the past.  Many art rooms have been viewed as a place where students can come to play--which, don't get me wrong, play certainly has its place because learning should be fun, but not frivolous--or, sadly, a dumping ground for students who haven't successfully integrated in the other "core" classes.

The arts can promote skill sets that will help students succeed in whatever field they find themselves and as much as I hate to justify the value of art in terms of its ability to help children get a job sometime in the future, it's important to "sell" art education to those who will be making the budgets.  Further, the arts allow students (aka future leaders of society) to exercise cognitive skills that they seldom use in other academic settings.  Students who have been exposed to the arts have been shown to demonstrate greater achievement in other areas.

Again, I iterate that I think the arts have intrinsic value outside of how creative thinking can facilitate making mo money.  Everything within a community is crafted in a manner that reflects what those people value.  Every artifice reflects who we are as a people--our dreams, hopes, fears, greatness, darkness, and what we may become.  No more effective barometer of a culture can be found outside of its creative expressions.

End rant.

I'm OK, You're OK...but We Could be a Lot Better: Transhumanism and Posthumanism in Art and Society

After researching the previous post about BioArt and seeing all the weird and wonderful things artists are doing with transgenic manipulation of organic tissue, I thought to myself, "Hey, if we can make a fluorescent bunny, what's stopping us from making a glow-in-the-dark human?"  Although it is tempting to look at these biomodified creatures in a darker light, I couldn't help buy wonder how the burgeoning technology in the biotech field could help the collective human race advance--hopefully to a good end and not to an apocalyptic Terminator-style throwdown.  And, like most of my ideas, somebody else had thought of it first.

The transhumanism/posthumanism movement is in full swing in some circles.  Commonly called H+ by those in the know, these thinkers and scientists are working in myriad fashion to enhance, upgrade, and, in short, make people better not only in terms of genetics but also in terms of access to quality health care, improved social well-being, and the creation of technology that will enhance the overall human experience.

Bad genetics bringing you down? No problem, pretty soon someone (for a nominal fee) can engineer a concoction to ensure you and your progeny achieve that coveted ubermensch--which may or may not usher in a bleak and world-wide dystopia.

Miss your dearly beloved, Fluffy?    BioArts International can help by cloning you a Fluffy II.  Well, at least they could before they had some unresolved issues.

Can't lift your inconsiderate neighbor's car who blocked you in yet again?  No problem. Japanese scientists gotcha covered:

full story here: http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/robotics/cyborg-exoskeletons-may-soon-become-common-bicycles

Have trouble hearing? No worries.  This guy can help:

Artist Stelios Arcadiou has had the ear created in a lab from cells and implanted into his skin Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-487039/Artist-implants-ear-arm.html#ixzz0mVjsSDsU

So, what is Transhumanism exactly?  Well, there isn't a standard definition but according to h+ magazine there are a few ways to look at it:

Critical Posthumans: This is what we all are. Critical posthumanism is simply the idea that our concept of “human” as a natural, non-technological thing was wrong from the beginning. Humans are most human when using technology, modifying ourselves and our surroundings.

Transcendent Posthumans: This is what we (most of us) wish we were. Flawless, immortal, godlike. Abilities so above and beyond humans that they are almost unimaginable.

Transhumans: This is what we are becoming [...] Nanotech, organ transplants, genetic engineering, prosthetics, cognitive- and mood-enhancing drugs, cloning, morphological freedom, and anti-aging medicine are a small sampling of the tech helping us overcome our biological limits.

There you go.  Nothing to worry about, right?  Before long, we will engineer our way to that longed-for utopia artists and thinkers have dreamed about for centuries--nay, it shall be an uberutopia of unparalleled magnitude.  Yes. I am being snarky.  Despite my initial concerns, I feel that there is great potential here for creating technology that will benefit humanity.  However, the intent is good but, as in many cases, the unintended consequences of endeavors begun with good intent can have complicated and unforeseeable negative outcomes.

There are certainly critics of the Transhumanist movement and since there are too many counterpoints to list and explain adequately, you can check them out here.

Stelarc, Amplified Body, Lazer Eyes, and Third Hand

We are on the verge of a breakthrough within humanity that will allow us access to power beyond belief. Within this generation or the next, there will be technology available that will allow us to forever alter the course of not only individual humans, but force us to redefine what it means to be human. Too many people are excluded from the conversation necessary to work through what will inevitably come to pass. It is easy to dismiss developments within genomics and the biotech fields as something that will not touch the average person; however, willful ignorance will not work. To turn a blind eye to this dialogue is dangerous.