The Debate in Art: What Is vs What Could Be

Following up on the previous post which tackled the definition of liberal vs conservative, there’s another topic that would be interesting to address: the meaning of art.  Plenty of artists and philosophers have debated the purpose of art and the impact it should have on society.  However, there are two questions that seem especially noteworthy in the modern day: should art be a reflection of the world as it is, or as it could be?

This is not as easy a question as it may appear as there’s no one way to look at the answer.  To go into more detail, the first opinion posits the idea that the art should be as realistic a portrayal of the world we live in and reflect that in storytelling and visual aesthetics.  In short, art should serve as something of an unedited photograph, capturing the world through the eyes of objective reality as opposed to the personal feelings of the artist.  The second suggests that art should be somewhat idealized in its approach to show the world as a reflection of human potential and virtue.  In a sense, it should show what we as people could become if we put in the time, effort, and patience into changing ourselves into something different.

Showing the world as it is gives the viewer an understanding of the present reality in which they exist.  Seeing evil in such a story makes it relatable in the sense that it lets the viewer understand the monsters they will have to overcome in their own lives while seeing good in the same type of story helps them understand how to deal with such problems in their daily life. In other words, it gives us a window into the world we live in so that we may understand it in ways we might not otherwise.

The weaker versions of this approach, though, can lead to egotistical art.  If an artist is only showing their own reality, that can make it unrelatable as it prioritizes not objective reality, but merely personal “gnosis” or experience masquerading as wisdom or understanding.  Similarly, it can then be an excuse to show ugliness as what the world is, showing a cynical worldview masquerading as truth.  In other words, bad art from this concept is usually personal biases pretending to be objective reality, which is why modern artists can make bad content that they claim reflects “the world we live in today” when it’s really just their own worldview.

On the other hand, there is the idea that art should show what we long to be or could become when striving for it.  Many fictional characters, stories, and art pieces can serve to be inspirational to viewers and serve as guides to instill passion in mankind for a better tomorrow.  So this art serves the role of pushing man to do better and make the world a better place in light of obstacles they may see.

The downside of this, though, is Utopianism.  When an artist is removed from reality, they can make something that is not feasible yet claim it is an image of tomorrow.  This can instill an unrealistic image in the impressionable viewer, especially the young, of a world that is never coming.  This is why many parents worry about what their kids consume and what impact it can have on them as they mature.

In many ways, this debate is a reflection of Plato’s philosophy.  Plato believed that there was a perfect world where the forms, the perfect version of every concept, idea, or object, existed and that our material world is merely a broken reflection of that world.  Idealized art, then, reflects these forms of what perfect, virtuous humanity looks like while realistic art shows us the world in its material form that we’re likely to experience.  Of note, Plato in many ways was not fond of art because he viewed it as a reflection of the imperfect, material world but his divide between the perfect vs imperfect here is a good reflection of the divide of artistry here: ideal vs experiential.

Side note: Plato had many thoughts on art from its ability to corrupt to what believed was the ignorance of the average artist.  Similarly, his student, Aristotle, completely disagreed on a lot of Plato’s philosophy and art in particular.  However, that topic could fill its own blogpost so we’ll only discuss the very basics of Plato’s philosophy here.

Now that the two theories on art have been discussed, one may be wondering which thought process makes better art.  The truth is, that question is completely subjective.  Both philosophies have strengths and weaknesses, so either could be useful depending on what story the writer wants to tell or how they want to tell it.  Really, as long as it fits the narrative and adds to the story, either can be a worthwhile approach.

For me personally, though, I tend to lean more towards the idealized.  When built on man’s struggles, art can show us what we can become, what we must overcome, and gives us the inspiration to persevere.  It’s why characters like Superman, Luke Skywalker, and Atticus Finch are so impactful in fiction.  They give us something to aspire towards, and if it’s feasible then that goal can be reached.

Regardless, it’s a debate the artist should have with themselves when they seek to make art.  What do you believe is the right approach?  Well, you’ll only know if you start making your own art.  Well, go right ahead and try.  Your art won’t exist if you don’t make it.

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

Though increasingly irrelevant as these phrases get replaced with the even harder to define phrases “right and left,” traditionally the phrase “conservatism” and “liberalism” has come to define the philosophical divide in American politics.  The oversimplification was that conservatives wanted smaller government in economic issues with increased involvement in so-called “social issues” and support for military action overseas while liberals want the opposite.  However, these aren’t beliefs so much as policy statements as they hardly explain why either group supposedly wants what they claim they want at any given moment.

Policy alone isn’t a particularly good justification for defining an ideology or philosophy.  After all, if you scour the internet, you can find all sorts of articles written in favor of the “conservative” or “liberal” case for any policy position even if they contradict existing the absolute norm that makes those policies make sense.  Then you have conservative and liberal candidates supporting the same positions in different contexts, such as both the “liberal” Obama and “conservative” Bush causing wars once elected, the “conservative” Reagan and the “liberal” Michael Bloomberg both supporting gun control, the “conservative” William F. Buckley and the “liberal” Gore Vidal both supporting marijuana legalization, and Hillary Clinton who can’t keep a policy consistent for more than a week.  Then, of course, there are political ideologies that violate policy norms like Trump-style populism or in-fighting in those ideologies like classical vs. progressive liberalism.  So that begs the question, then, as to what separates them or what defines either ideology?

Well, after a lot of conversations with people in the political sphere and studying different ideologies, I came up with my own definition.  It’s hardly scientific, but I wanted to give how I tend to analyze these divides as I have found it to be the most consistent way to analyze different candidates or groups in politics.  So I’m sharing it here in the hope that it might help people when analyzing the political divide as it seems to be consistent across different groups or politicians.

Loosely defined, a conservative is someone who looks to the past for inspiration while a liberal is someone who believes that the world should be a certain way and that legislation should be used to make it so.  Conservatives traditionally believe in maintaining institutions as they exist or existed while preserving them to govern in the modern day (as that is where the term “conserve”-ative comes from).  Meanwhile, the liberal becomes interested in concepts about what the world should be and tries to build institutions or organizations that will reflect that idea and thus accomplish their goals for mankind.

To explain conservatives, most people grow up with existing institutions, be that religion, nations, corporations, non-profits, etc.  Conservatives seek to maintain those existing institutions and believe that keeping them alive is important for the benefit of society.  They realize that there is much wisdom in the past and that what came before still applies to today so they seek to use it when governing or creating new institutions.

There is much wisdom in this as most of what human beings have already experienced gives us insight into what tomorrow could look like, why utopian ideas fail, and what we can expect from our interactions with others or technology.  After all, most of modern philosophy is built on the works of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, Christ has already risen from the dead, and the American Revolution has already happened so it seems unnecessary to reinvent any of these for the modern day when we can just maintain their impact.  Also, the past serves as inspiration for future ideas as well, as Walt Disney in part built Disneyland based on experiences from his childhood, CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien both wrote their own work based on their love of fairytales, and much of the American Capitol building’s architecture is done in a Greco-Roman style.  It’s fair to say that there is much that has been done or can be learned from history, so there is an obvious appeal to using what has come before to serve as a guiding light for tomorrow.

The two biggest drawbacks of that though both involve an inability to advance.  The first is reactionarism.  At times, what we know can be deemed incredibly safe so we refuse to make adjustments as the world changes around us.  This can be an inability to embrace new technology, refusal to acknowledge that people today aren’t as interested in what came before as they used to be, or inability to make peace with the fact that the institution we used to love is no longer run by the same people so it’s not going to behave like it used to today.

The world is always changing and people come and go.  There is much we can learn from the past that can help us understand humanity, but simply repeating what was popular in yesteryear isn’t the same as maintaining it or using it in the modern day.  It’s why a lot of people can grow out of touch and simply fail to adapt as opposed to facing the current reality.

Which brings us to the second problem: some conservatives merely don’t want to change when the world around them is changing.  It’s more just a matter of going with the flow or accepting what already exists as though any new or abnormal idea will fail just because it’s unfamiliar.  99 times out of 100, that’s usually correct, but that’s really more cynicism if not built on something objective or inherent.  In short, when the institutions rot, there’s not much left for them to “conserve” and they find themselves at odds with modernity.

On the other end of the spectrum is the liberal.  One may be tempted to call them “futurists” since they bill themselves as the opposite of conservatives who are the guardians of the past.  However, the future doesn’t exist whereas the past did so it’s impossible to “conserve” a future.

Instead liberals turn to the origin of what they want the future to be: an image in their heads.  Be it philosophical, such as the writings of an ideologue, moral, such as a belief in justice, or seeing a problem in the world and hope to address it, such as eradicating poverty.  Plenty of conservatives may want similar ends as well, but the methodology is entirely different.  Whereas the conservative seeks to maintain, the liberal seeks to create or change to reflect a vision of what they believe could be at some point.

So their biggest weakness is Utopianism.  Because what they want may only be based on how they feel the world should be, it can be based on imagination purely.  This is great for art, but terrible for policy and social reform.

Not being based on anything but an idea, what people want may not actually be good for them and may not be based in reality.  As the Catholic Church notes, man is born corrupted due to the nature of original sin and, even after baptism, our desires are still disordered.  For that reason, without humility and objective reality, ideas and ideologies lead to ruin.

This is why, more controversially, the far-right tends to reflect the far-left more than it does actual conservatism (hear me out).  Most of the alleged end results for certain groups in the far right are based on ideas they haven’t experienced enacted.  After all, America was never an ethnostate run by a single leader, it was never a workers’ paradise, it usually only has an unregulated market before the government steps in, and most of the people who idolize the past these days didn’t grow up during it.  So, it’s fair to say that their ideology is just as utopian or removed from reality and would need to be reenacted through force.  It isn’t too surprising, then, that the far-left and far-right usually have the same beliefs on issues like abortion, race, and economics.

Which is also why many liberals become conservatives over time as well.  It’s not that people drop their views on humanity and suddenly adopt a desire to change their economic platform (though that can happen).  It’s more that either they’ll eventually take over the existing order and seek to maintain what they created, or simply age out so that their ideas are no longer popular like any trend and thus be treated like they’re a product of a previous generation.  Either way, most things become conservative eventually because most things age.

Though hardly scientific, this tends to be my understanding of what separates the “conservatives” and the “liberals.”  Across different ideologies or institutions, that, more than policy, seems to separate the two philosophies.  So when analyzing what perspective someone is coming from, remember to ask if they’re trying to preserve something, or create something new.

For those wondering my views, if they couldn’t tell from previous blogposts, I’m happy to respond that I’m a

Happy 250th Birthday America!

 

Today marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the United States’s Declaration of Independence and the beginning of becoming a new nation.  On this day, we celebrate when representatives of 13 colonies sign their own death warrant, announcing that they wanted to be a nation free from the rule of the mother country, England.  At the time, it seemed like an improbable dream, but today we celebrate its reality as a major turning point in human history.

There are many who want to talk about problems the country faces today, but this blog will be talking about everything that we have accomplished as a people, gotten through, and the values that define us, regardless of who runs the White House.  After all, love the U.S. or hate it, if you live here then it’s the only country we got and it’s all we know.  So for that reason, this post will take a look at its history up to today.

From its inception, the U.S. became the first country to be fully based on the ideas and principles of John Locke, a man who believed that there are three rights that can be guaranteed protection by the government.  Those rights were life, liberty, and property (though changed to the “Pursuit of Happiness” in the Declaration of Independence).  Those ideas struggled to take hold in Europe, but we were the first to develop a government fully based on his principles.

From there, we survived a war against what was at the time the greatest empire on the planet.  Fresh off of a major defeat of the French, Britain went on to find that our war made maintaining its colonies here too costly.  From there, we had won our freedom for self-governance and for the protection of the rights of the American people.

The next century was not an easy one.  Almost immediately, we saw debating over our government structure that gave birth to the document that serves as the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, where our federal government was divided into three parts, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.  From there, we saw fighting over what monetary structure we should have, whether power is vested in the states or the federal government, and how much influence politicians should have over political appointments or how much influence the federal government should have over business.  At the same time, we expanded to the Pacific Ocean, ended slavery, and became the dominant force in the Americas.  

That would set us up for greatness in the 20th Century.  In that century, we oversaw the end of all the historic European Empires, defeated fascism and Soviet communism, and became the dominant world power.  We also brought about new technologies that redefined the world from the first electric television to mass producing the car to the vaccine for polio to masterminding the first flight at Kittyhawk.  We even put a man on the moon and remain the only country to do so.  In short, we’ve redefined the world and accomplished so much that our nation truly is exceptional.

The reason for writing all that today is to remind the average American of our shared heritage and culture.  We’ve accomplished so much, continue to stay the dominant country across the globe, and continue to maintain the government our founding fathers left us.  Remembering how some countries haven’t made it this far, our 250 years is quite the accomplishment.

For that reason, let’s take today to celebrate our shared home.  Let’s get involved in our local community and be grateful for where we live.  So, this 4th of July, Happy Birthday America and here’s to another 250 years.