Showing posts with label the examined world. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the examined world. Show all posts

Monday, December 31, 2007

Art: More of it Please!

What is art? Is it important?If not, why not? If so, why is it so?

I started thinking about art and realized that it may be one of the most effective means of achieving progress. As I considered, I came to the belief that increasing the expression and appreciation of art can improve a person, a business, a government, or a society. The neglect of art has been the kiss of death in every instance. Art is the secret ingredient to life.

These are philosophical questions that have been raised and pondered thousands of times over thousands of years. I think every culture should ask these questions. Every organization and grouping of people should ask these questions. Every individual should question the nature, quality, and value of art for themselves. The old answers and methods are useful guides, but they are not useful answers. Only your own answer is useful to you.

In some ways, it is impossible to avoid these questions. If you accept the fact that movies, books, and music are art (if not, what are they?), then you must know what you like. You can answer whether you appreciate rap music, romantic comedies, reality TV, and mystery fiction. You can look at a painting and tell me if you would hang it in your house, and if so, which room it would go in. Your answers to preferences are based on your own pnderings, even if they are shallow or subconscious.

A deeper, conscious, and perhaps even documented approach to your own answers about the philosophy of art will allow you to appreciate it on new levels. You will begin to learn more about yourself, you will refine your approach to life, and you will develop or expand your own artistic expression.

I think one of the biggest things that is lacking in our society is a deliberate attempt at expecting, appreciating, and expressing art in every facet of our life. To seek artistic expression in business would improve our society on many levels. To seek more ways to combine art with science would make science more beautiful and art more relevant. Religion was once the primary source of inspiration for artists; if more religious people sought to express themselves through high-quality and deeply-considered artistic expressions we would have more beautiful and relevant forms of art and religion.

I think art is characterized by creation. When you really aim for artistic expression and give it all of your thought, emotion, and effort, you create something new. New is not always good and it is not always bad, but it is always required in order to improve anything. To put it another way, you will never achieve any goal you set without some level of creativity. Individuals, groups, and societies are all dependent on some level of creativity to achieve, grow, or progress. That creativity is enabled and enhanced by art.

Humans are slow in comparison to other living things. In fact, there are few animals that couldn't catch us if we were limited to our own feet and muscles. We have very limited senses; most animals, bugs, birds, and fish have senses that we can only dream about. We are weak when it comes to most animals, especially if you compare our strength to our body size. Elephants are stronger than us in every way, ants are stronger based on a ratio of body size to carrying capacity.

Even so, we have one advantage over every living thing: we are creative. Even though we cannot see as well naturally, we have developed ways of seeing our world that no other living thing can see. Despite our limited mobility and lack of swimming or flying capacity, we have created vehicles that exceed the limits of every other living thing. Our creativity has allowed us to travel to places that cannot support life without our creativity. In many ways, our creativity has exceeded the capabilities of natural life. Our creativity has the potential to allow us to create life on our terms and perhaps achieve immortality or timelessness.

The creativity that allows us to rise to the top of the living world despite our shortcomings is based on scientific technology. However, science alone is simply a matter of explanation and experimentation. Science allows us to discover and explain the details of our world, but science does not create anything new without art.

In order for Einstein to create the equations that explain the speed of light and predict the effects of energy consumption in impossible-to-achieve conditions, he needed to think artistically. By attempting to think in ways that no one else had previously done, and expressing new ideas in a meaningful way, Einstein required qualities that are true of artists rather than scientists. A scientist understands fundamental theories and mathematical methods, but artists see the unseen and venture into the unknown.

Music and paintings were once devoted to religion. Huge Buddhas, ornate Mosques, and paintings of biblical scenes are studied thousands of years after they were created by atheists, skeptics, or adherents of other religions. Even though I am not a Muslim, I can appreciate the mosaics of the Arab world. On the other hand, the ugliest religious men ever--the Taliban--banned art in every form and destroyed one of the most important and awe-inspiring works of art in the world.

Art can make religion inspiring and beautiful. I think our current state of religion (in almost every form) is focused more on theology, armumentation, competition, and defense. The religious art that exists is rarely as inspired and fresh as it once was. I see many artists imitating or copying other artists and produciing art that is vanilla and predictable. Perhaps I am missing it, but I am not seeing religious art that breaks new ground and sees new perspectives like Michaelangelo and Bach.

In the history of western civilization, there are two key periods to understand: the dark ages and the renaissance. Both of those periods are defined by the value they placed on art. In both instances, the quality of the average person's life was relative to the value placed on artistic expression. Art is a key factor in raising or threatening the quality of a person's life. For example, compare the standard of living in Turkey and Afghanistan. There are so many similarities between their history, culture, religion, and geography. Even so, the standard of living and level of artistic expression are both high in Turkey while they are extremely low in Afghanistan. That is not a coincidence, nor is it an isolated example. It is a constant throughout history in every region and culture: Art is required for life to have substance, quality, and meaning.

Art can be an expression of beauty. In your house, if you have a wall, floor, or object that is boring, shabby, or even ugly, you can immediate change the feeling of the entire room with a simple and beautiful piece of art. Take a windowless, gray basement and add a woven rug and a mural--now it is a comfortable place to spend time. Take a plain, white refrigerator and add a 1st-grader's work of art, you immediately brighten the whole kitchen. Studies have shown that adding art to the workplace can measurably boost creativity and morale (if other factors are in place such as management, market, and salary.)

Sometimes art is required to express an emotion, and the result is not beautiful. Art can be used to inspire guilt, fear, outrage, patriotism, shame, motivation, focus, or humility/awe. The key is expression and communication. Our words can be spoken or written in any volume or size and still find themselves ineffective at communicating a message fully. However, art is always an effective method to communicate a message or emphasize our words. The next time you drive down a road, compare your own reaction to signs of only text (Street signs, etc...) to signs that include pictures (Cautionary road signs or advertisements.) McDonalds has found that a picture of a Big Mac has a greater effect on their sales than any slogan or logo.

In that same vein of communication, it is sometimes necessary to use art to provide perspective. I can explain the solar system's structure a million times to you, but you may never understand it until I show you a picture of it. The perspective of a bird's-eye view can be all it takes to understand complex concepts. Perhaps such a picture would have been useful to Galileo as he argued against the church in favor of heliocentrism.

As previously mentioned in one example, art improves business. Art is not automatically profitable, but neither are other business concentrations. Businesses have failed that were based on creating new art, such as record companies and graphic design firms. However, businesses have also failed because they were so focused on the bottom line or financial gimmicks that they forgot to be creative and attractive. In my mind, the best way to illustrate the value of art in business is to look at the auto industry: beautiful and creative cars will make money of they are also marketed and manufactured intelligently. Ugly cars without creative features, like the "Yugo", will have a rough time in the market no matter how carefully they are managed.

With the word "art" many people immediately think of paintings, music, or poetry. I think that definition is too narrow to define art, and it is counterproductive. In fact, any attempt to define art threatens to limit its impact on our world. The looser we allow art to be defined, the broader we are able to consider our artistic expression and make it relevant and beneficial.

The point I want to make here is that art should always be bigger than our imagination, which allows our imagination to grow. Art is a product of our imagination. It is also a source of fuel and fertilizer for imagination. Without art and imagination, we would not have cars, computers, or even peace and prosperity.

It takes an artistic and imaginative mind to find a way to end war or to expect a life that is devoid of violence. I expect to spend every day of my life without hearing a gun-shot, without having to kill another person, or having to bury a person I love who was killed by violence. It is easy for me to think in such a way because it is a life I have always known. It will require imagination for people in Darfur, Iraq, or Afghanistan to envision a life without violence; artistic expression will enable people to expect peace and seek its implementation.

A look at recent history will demonstrate the power of art for good or evil. In Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and China's Cultural Revolution, all expressions of art were hijacked by the government and used to control the populace. Expressions of art were used by the baby-boomer generation to change our perspectives of war, race, and gender. Art is heavily used in marketing to increase sales; some people watch the Super Bowl just to see how artistic the commercials will be.

The term "craftsman" is used less frequently today than it was in the past, and is often misused. A craftsman was once a person who no only performed a task but did so artfully. They didn't just make a table, they made an object that was as beautiful as it was useful. We tend not to buy tables from craftsman anymore; we expect our tables to be cheaper and settle for simple or common tables that are mass produced on machines. An artist may be used to design the table, but after the 10,000th copy rolls off the line is it really a work of art?

I like having affordable products available to me, but I do not like the fact that mass production is more valuable than craftsmanship. It is a real loss that in place of craftsman today, we have machines that are incapable of creation, or low-wage employees that are neither empowered nor inspired to be creative. We are beginning to imitate the futuristic visions of artists such as George Orwell, Alduous Huxley, and Roger Waters. Even though we can find items that are pleasing to the eye and fulfill the functions they were intended for, it is rare to find consumer goods that contain craftsmanship, creativity. originality, or true beauty. Mediocrity seems to be the expected and accepted standard.

We need to think more about art. The same old ways of looking at business, science, religion, and life should be refreshed, enhanced, or replaced by new perspectives and ideas. By infusing artistic expression into our daily lives, in everything we do from cooking to dressing to working, we add to our pleasure. Art can be fun. It can be healing and refreshing. It can wake us up from mediocrity and monotony.

Art allows us to experience more of life. If you watch a movie and only understand half of the jokes, then you only enjoyed half of the potential that the movie offered. How much more would you enjoy that same movie if you understood all the jokes, assuming all the jokes were funny? As Shrek might say, life is like an onion; it has layers. As you peel each layer back, you find another layer that was once concealed to you. Through art, we discover perspectives and sensations that were once concealed to us.

If you have read this blog for any length of time, you should expect a mention of my favorite subject, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). I think that it takes the same area of our brain that creates and appreciates art to appreciate and implement CSR. Like art, CSR can open up the perspective of a business and its people, increase morale, expose and enhance beauty, and stimulate creativity. By looking for ways to be profitable while acting responsibly with everyone affected by your operation, you consider more solutions to business problems, some of which may be better than the solutions you would have considered without CSR.

By using art to create beauty, inspire emotions, and provide perspective, an artist makes his and her world a better place to live. Like karma, by sending out their art they receive a better world to live in. If a business uses CSR and attempts to express the qualities and attributes of art, they too will improve their world. They will find that their market responds to them in new ways, that their competitors become more civil, that their vendors and communities partner with them and root for their success, and that their employees are more effective and less destructive. CSR is not just a method of limiting liability and negative press; CSR can be a method of artistic expression that increases profitability and effectiveness for a business. Moreover, it can make business enjoyable at every level.

Friday, September 7, 2007

Loyalty

I have often wondered about the concept of loyalty. As a Marine, we were taught to be supremely loyal (our motto Semper Fidelis is Latin for "always faithful"). We were also reminded of times when we would have to disobey orders, such as the soldiers in My Lai, Vietnam should have. I really had trouble with the concept of when to disobey and appear to be disloyal because war contains so many gray areas. Also, the consequences of disobedience are deadly. Perhaps that is the excuse of some of the Marines from 3/5 who followed their squad-leader in Haditha, Iraq that allegedly killed innocent civilians--they were torn between loyalty and morality.

Even today, there are times when I wonder if I should be more loyal to my customers or my corporation. Loyal to my boss or to my corporation? Loyal to myself or to my company? Loyal to my wife or my mother?

Mark's blog has produced a tangent that I would like to include here: a surface analysis of loyalty. I do not know that I can do more than graze the surface on a subject that can cut so deep and requires a broader experience than I possess. Even so, loyalty is a subject I must face often, as well as teach to my children and nephew. Therefore, I might as well get started now cleaving the fine points of loyalty. Perhaps I by analyzing it now I will have a better grasp of loyalty when I really need it.

Loyalty, it is argued by many, is a binary condition: either you are loyal or you are not. There isn't a gray area of loyalty according to conventional wisdom, and there isn't a reliable method of choosing when to be loyal, or not to be, that everyone would agree with. If I asked my father or barber, they would counsel me that I should be totally loyal to the institutions that I benefit from: my family, my company, my church, my nation, etc.

However, we have all seen what happens when we are blindly loyal: I think Nazi Germany is the most popular and best example of misplaced loyalty. Even in America, we cannot be expected to be loyal without negative consequences. My company has laid off loyal employees, families have been known to do horrible things when inheritance or scandal is on the line, our nation drafted boys for Vietnam even though they never intended to win the war (nor should we have been there in the first place), and churches...well, don't get me started on that. You know what loyal religious zealots can do, regardless of what name they give their deity.

Perhaps Shakespeare grasped the essence of the right kind of loyalty: "To thine own self be true." This is the kind of loyalty that I have clung to so far in my life, and I do not think it has proved to be a shallow, selfish loyalty that leads me to rationalizing unethical behavior and disloyalty. You may predict that a loyalty that is based on situational ethics is bound to be imperfect. I would argue that all loyalty is bound to be imperfect, but situational loyalty based on personal values that are aligned with societal mores is the most accurate loyalty we, as humans, can muster.

Benedict de Spinoza argued that the highest virtue of man was to know God; this knowledge would make us ethical. He argued that God is always ethical because that is His nature to be so: everything God does is right because He embodies what is right. According to this argument, the more we know God, the more we will desire virtue and our actions will begin to match God's ethics. The end result of knowing God is to imitate His nature. If everything God does is considered ethical, and if we know and imitate God then everything we do will be ethical too.

Spinoza goes on to argue that if we seek our own desires, we will conflict with the desires of other men seeking their desires. We will be hated and opposed in achieving our desires, which is obviously contrary to an ideal life. However, if we are all seeking God's desires, we can all be happy. We can help each other, receive help, and all end up equally receiving our share of the one desire.

I lean towards agnosticism, or at least Christian cynicism of some sort. Even so, I can follow Spinoza's logic most of the way. I believe that we can all agree as a society on some level of moral absolutes (against stealing, killing innocents, etc...) If we are examining our life and our society, as well as ourselves, we will know instinctively when loyalty is called for and when you should blow the whistle.

Also along Spinoza's reasoning, I think most of us are fairly honest and try to do the right thing for ourselves and our society. I have accidentally left my car unlocked with CD's and electronics visible and been glad to find them unmolested. If we are seeking to do what is right and in the best interests of ourselves, which includes doing what is best for the objects of our loyalty, then we will know where to cleave the limits of loyalty.

For instance, as a Marine I hope I would know at the necessary time that shooting unarmed civilians is actually disloyal to the Marine Corps. In the end, I should know that such an action is not only morally outrageous but it will damage the image of my beloved Corps and my nation, as well as my family and myself. Therefore, even though resisting the order to fire is disloyal to my squad leader and unit, it is an act of loyalty to all Slobodzians, all Marines, and all Americans.

We could even carry this further to say that shooting unarmed civilians is disloyal to the human race of which we are a member, and that disloyalty will have a direct, adverse effect on me (besides a blackened soul, I will enjoy less stability and more animosity. I may lose my life or a friend's life in revenge for the killing of an unarmed civilian). It would be better if our starting point was here at the highest level, but as humans we tend to be loyal to the lowest orders first.

I plan to talk more on my blog about how we are all symbiotic. At this point, I would like to define symbiotic as the state of interdependence; we all need each other; when we help each other we help ourselves; when we hurt someone else, we have hurt ourselves. The dictionary calls it symbiosis, but I am creating the word Symbioticism to define a philosophy I am developing.

For the subject of loyalty: if we understand Symbioticism, we realize that we act in our own interest when we help others. Therefore, if we make a decision with Symbioticism in mind, we will always be loyal to a higher order, even if we must be disloyal to a loyal order. Moreover, we know that if we choose a cowardly loyalty over known morality, then we have harmed ourselves as much as if we had polluted our own drinking water. The Germans should have known they were not better off by exterminating the Jews; they lost many of their best scientists, logisticians, and entreprenuers when they "cleansed the race".

I agree with Spinoza's reasoning: If I am a bad person, then I will make a bad decision when faced with a crisis of loyalty. If I am a good person, then by definition my actions are usually good; as much as is humanly possible. The result will be a right decision when faced with a crisis of loyalty: though I may choose to be disloyal to a certain organization or institution, I will have chosen rightly and it can be considered loyalty to a higher institution.

Now if we could all just agree on what is good and bad (what is quality?) in every situation.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Dreams vs. Memories

I cannot stop thinking about what I read in Chapter 15 of "The World is Flat" (Release 2.0, 1996). Author Thomas Friedman is discussing "The Curse of Oil" and near the end of the section, on p. 564, he says "When you have to make things with your hands and then trade with others in order to flourish, not just dig a well in your own backyard, it inevitably broadens imagination and increases tolerance and trust." After that grabbed me, I reread an earlier section of the chapter where, starting on p.553, Friedman discusses, "Does your society have more memories than dreams or more dreams than memories?" He says that if memories are emphasized over dreams in a company or culture, and of course in an individual, "the end is near."

The need for imagination and dreams is a deep part of the American culture, and has been since our inception. The need for imagination and dreams is what brought almost everybody here (those us who came here willingly.)

Today in the American culture, among people who have been Americans for several generations, you can see a similar divide. The people who have no imagination, no dreams, and who cannot or will not trade their services in the market place are usually the trouble makers, regardless of their location, race, and creed. I have seen people come from a poor ghetto, country, or trailer-park atmosphere, dare to dream, and went on to make something of themselves. It seems all that these rags-to-middle-class-or-better people needed was the audaciousness to dream (despite the laughter and maliciousness of family and peers), and an imagination to develop their competitive advantage.

In a global context, I see the dynamic that Friedman talks about as well. The U.S. has oil, but not enough that we can rely on it for our needs. We require imagination, innovation, and elbow-grease to feed our people. Dubai in the United Arab Emirates realized that they will soon no longer be able to rely on oil profits, so they imagined an indoor ski hill in the middle of the desert, and man-made islands in the form of palm trees.

I wonder about Russia. They are desperate to fix their economic problems, crumbling infrastructure, and demographic problems. They have oil, natural gas, coal, iron, diamonds, gold, and a plethora of other resources to sell. Luckily, those resources are not enough to run the worlds largest nation, because Russia has the cultural tendency to run rough-shod over its people and suppress imagination. However, non-renewable commodities are currently the primary fuel of their economic engine, and without those resources they would not be a blip on any economic radar.

When you read about Russia suppressing freedom and violating asset ownership it usually has to do with harvesting natural resources--but not always. There is also the problem of the Russian Mafia, which many people say is unavoidable at some point of doing business in Russia. The smaller municipalities have had a tendency to allow western companies to bring in imagination, technology, and capital, and then allow a local company to take over the operation. We all have seen the former KGB officer who somehow ingested a poisonous level of a radioactive substance, and the journalists who were critical of the Kremlin and somehow ran into freak, fatal accidents.

I see two Russia's. In both, the memory is long. However, in one Russia the memory is of the horrors of the Soviet Union and the Czars, which inspires a larger set of dreams for the future. In the other Russia, the memories are of "the good old days" of the Soviet Union when everybody pulled together, hard decisions were made for you, the problems were swept under the rug, and the politicians had absolute power. Here, imagination is dead. Which one rules Russia? Which one is in the hearts of the majority of Russians? Have all the Russians with dreams and the capacity for imagination left already? It would be a shame if the "Brain Drain" not only sucked out knowledge and experience, but drained away dreams, imaginations, hopes, and aspirations of a culture.

I am left wondering how we can inspire nations like Iraq and Afghanistan to dream, rather than remembering what Abdul did to Ali in 1322 A.D. I am left wondering how to replace or prop up dreams that have left the American poor, Russia, and elsewhere. And I wonder if the next generation of terrorists will come from imagination-challenged nations like France and Russia (or the American trailer-park and inner-cities), rather than Egypt and Saudi Arabia.