Theory Parker: Citizen of the World

I’ve long maintained that one of the worst ideas to ever plague mankind is nationalism. Nationalism, the identification with one’s nation and its interests typically to the detriment of other nations, is a natural outcropping of tribalism which, long ago, used to be on a small enough scale as to not be harmful on a global scale. But, thanks to population growth, the internet, and all the other streams of media that know the value of sowing division, tribalism and nationalism have become so strongly embedded in people’s psyche that they would become virtually rudderless without these identity markers. When the alternative to being rudderless is being a detriment to other members of the human race, I, as a thinking and rational person, would choose to be rudderless. Only I am not; my county is the world. More on that momentarily.

The thing about concepts like tribalism and nationalism is that it divides people along often arbitrary lines. As a citizen of the United States I’m supposed to hate the Chinese for letting COVID-19 out of their country and wreaking havoc across the globe? Last time I checked, viruses didn’t have nationalities, doesn’t care what tribe you belong to, and will potentially kill you regardless. (Funny story – as of this writing the U.S. has more cases than any other. Americans are the ones spreading it more than any other nationality, so, I guess we’re supposed to hate Americans given the preceding logic.) Even within the United States, citizens are often raised to have contempt for their neighboring state because, well, because someone drew a line somewhere.

Tribalism and nationalism strictly ignore what binds people everywhere together – the fact that we’re all people where by ‘people’ we mean human beings. Undoubtedly it is difficult for nations to fight a wars if their troops think of the animals they’re fighting as anything more than that. Here, I’m reminded of a line from the movie Saving Private Ryan (I think) where one or the troops asks another, “Why are we fighting the Germans if we’re probably going to be friends 30 years from now?” (I’m paraphrasing). People everywhere have more in common than they think such as the need for food, clean air and water, shelter, friendship, intimacy, and a sense of belonging (e.g. tribalism). Of course there are nuances to these concepts but the point is people often have to conceptually go out of their way to dehumanize others in order to get a sense of any self-worth. Why should this be the case?

This shouldn’t be the case because it is clear that throughout history cooperation between people has been more productive than going to war or worse, committing to genocide. Squabbling over irrelevant things like which side of an egg to crack open accomplishes nothing and wastes time, though to be sure, people have killed each other for less, such as being a woman. What’s really at stake when people commit wholeheartedly to tribalism or nationalism is power, that goddamn exertion of power human beings are so bad at getting over. Certainly, Nietzsche’s Will to Power is more or less in the nature of all human beings, but it can be nurtured out of a person as easily as its flames are fanned by manipulative forces. Or, the Will to Power can be overcome by introspection. I overcame it through self-analysis when I realized (fortunately early enough) that I didn’t like people telling me what to do, especially when they didn’t have good reasons for wanting me to do what they wanted. This allowed me to examine the world through consecutively larger lenses.

And so I came to a point where I realized it’s irrelevant that I happen to be American by an accident of birth. (I find it repugnant when people do this, are proud of something they had no choice in being.) I could go so far as to say that I have so little in common – value wise –  with my countrymen and women that I’m actually not American. I’m a simple human being, much the same as any other, and if I owe allegiance to any group – which I don’t – it would be the human race whether that person is red, white, blue, or black. It doesn’t matter which country’s ideology one subscribes to, one is still part of the whole. We should then act accordingly because the differences one makes along ideological lines are less than the lines drawn between species (though, even at that point, we’re all still living things). The more one sees the bigger picture, the closer we can become. Divisions we’re supposed to prescribe to are typically driven by the rich and powerful. Recognize this and the less likely we are to be coerced to kill for them in wars. The only way I could possibly find myself fighting for my country of birth is if the entire world was at risk, such as in World War II. The ‘War on Terrorism,’ a situation the U.S. helped create, not so much. I’m sure I would fight for my own preservation, but until that’s required of me I have better things to do.

There are still many countries to visit and many cultures to experience. I find it fascinating to do so because one never knows when they’re going to come across a situation where they find people doing things better than they were doing within their own culture. And this is the value of experiencing other cultures; it allows you to see problems in a new light and therefore possibly solve them with different thinking. In the supposed words of Albert Einstein, “We cannot solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them,” which he apparently said upon musing about a post-nationalist, post-militaristic world. It is clear no one culture is superior to another in successfully propagating the human race or in securing its future, so why is the idea so widely subscribed to? We already know and we already know that it’s false.

I owe allegiance to no country because no country has demonstrated it is superior to any other. (Proponents of American exceptionalism are easily defeated and will not be entertained here.) My allegiances are made on a case by case basis. My judgements are cast on a case by case basis. The world is too rich, too ripe for exploration to remain within one’s shell for too long. For it’s a myth that the shell offers protection. It does provide insulation, where being too cozy with one’s own ideas for too long leads to mental weakness, inflexibility, and worst of all, controllability. These are not a good things. If humanity as a whole would only recognize themselves as such, as human, the fewer robots there would be hell-bent on destroying it all.

What is Art?

Art.

What is art? You’ve probably been told that this is a difficult question. The word ‘art’ is so broad in scope that it might as well be synonymous with the word ‘love’ whose definition is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Words that are too broad in scope are not words at all, but mere utterances aimed at conveying gross approximation. This problem of definitions plagues every language besides mathematics it seems, and so it must be up to someone to remedy this situation if it is to ever be known what anyone is talking about. I will now attempt the seemingly impossible given that there appears to be no objective basis for what is considered art. I will attempt to be objective and therefore come to a reasonable conclusion.

What is art? There must be criteria met for something to be considered art. We cannot, for the sake of definitions, rely solely upon subjective judgement calls such as “I like it” or “I don’t like it.” Again, generalities only confuse the issue. And so, I have arrived at several criteria to determine if something is art and I do admit this list may not be exhaustive. However, the criteria I think are reasonable. In thinking about the criteria, I will analyze it from the perspective of having experienced an oil painting. Though the criteria should apply to all forms of art (or what is assumed to be an art form), I think it easiest to think about our criteria as it applies to paintings.

What are the criteria?

First, and perhaps most importantly, art must invoke an emotion in someone besides the artist. (No one considering themselves an artist would produce something they think should be a called art without being passionate about the work, so they are disqualified from figuring into this criteria.) If a piece of art can elicit an emotion from at least one subject, the work is on its way to being considered art. Thus, the more people the work elicits emotion in, the more confident we can be in proclaiming something ‘art.’ However, there is a very important caveats to this first criteria.

The emotion elicited must be what the artist had intended to convey. An ‘artist’ who suggests that their painting is going to mean different things to different people has created something that merely speaks to the relative freedom a society may posses and not to human nature, where human nature is something that changes very little over time whereas societies change very quickly by comparison. Thus, a painting can have its meaning, it’s eliciting emotion fixed in perpetuity if it renders the same emotion in someone decades in the future as it does when it is first presented, though, we do have to allow for the context of the art’s time and place of creation. (For example, there is no doubt – bear with me – much Nazi propaganda that could be considered art despite how we may presently feel about WWII-era Naziism. Such art, through the lens of being a German nationalist circa the year 1939, would likely make us feel patriotic, as it’s creator intended.) A painting that conveys something entirely other than what the artist had in mind is not art. Remember, the definition of art cannot be left solely up to subjectivity or the word is, for all intents and purposes, useless. Ultimately, not only does the work have to elicit an intended response, that response must be maintained despite the passage of time and culture.

Of course, a reasonable objection is what if the artist’s intentions are unknown? At a minimum, an emotion has to be elicited and the response must be fairly universal* among those experiencing the work. Again, the emotional response cannot be broadly subjective. Ambiguity or vagueness is not the point of art; these words mean something is not being communicated clearly enough.

[Meaning, more often than not.]

It should be obvious that various emotions can be the intended response to a work of art, however, something like a painting doesn’t have to convey a strict message. To paraphrase Youtube user, Spoudaois, art can [also] be produced to create an aesthetic as something interesting or that enhances a mood, or as something complimentary to its surroundings (but also be able to be considered art on its own merit). I am in agreement with this assessment because it segues nicely towards the next criteria – purpose. What is the work’s purpose; what does the art do for the consumer of the art?

Probably not art.

If the art in question was created for the sake of an artist’s therapy, as something they simply had to get out of their system least they be driven mad, this is not art. Certainly the act of creation can be therapeutic, however, an artist cannot accurately gauge their work any more than a given person can accurately assess their own intelligence. The person experiencing a painting must be able to say, “Ah, this is what the art does,” and can go on to explain. If a painting does nothing, say, is a canvas painted white and without so much as texture among its characteristics, this would have no purpose in an all-white room and merely wastes the observer’s time.

At this point, we might raise the objection that what if this was the artist’s purpose, for their all-white painting in an all-white room to elicit frustration or anger at the observer’s time being wasted? (And perhaps also among the artist’s intent was for this to be a metaphor for the time we all waste in our lives?) This brings us to our last criteria, that a work of art is not something the average citizen can create. Anyone can create an all-white painting. This ability does not render one an ‘artist.’

An artist is one who displays talent not possessed by the population at large in much the same way the general population is unable to play professional-level basketball. For example, if a painter renders a near-lifelike portrait with charcoal, they possess talent that most others do not. Moreover, in much the same way as the professional basketball player, it does not matter if this talent is the result of innate ability or deep learning the average person in not amenable to; it is the ability itself that counts. Art is the result of an ability to produce it.

It might be argued here that artificial intelligence could produce a work of art free of human interference. However, the A.I. relied on human interference to exist in the first place and cannot operate outside of the parameters programmed into it. Nor does A.I. actually know what effort or ability is; it merely does what is asked of it. Currently, no ‘thinking’ machine wakes up in the morning and decides it is going to paint that day when it has the option not to, nor can it decide what mediums to use. In a vaguely similar vein, we should not consider a good deal of graphic design art ‘art’ either, as much of this work can be reproduced by the average citizen with relatively minimal software training. (This is not to say talented graphic artists do not exist, though.)

To recap the criteria, a work of art must:

·        * Eliciting an emotion from its consumer and be able to convey the message the artist intended [or]

·        * Produce an aesthetic, that is, enhancing or creating a mood, or act as something complimentary to its environment;

·        *Have a purpose which in brevity should be captured within the previous criteria;

·        * Be the result of talent that the average person does not and likely cannot possess.

With these criteria in mind, we can likely dismiss much of what is currently considered art and regulate it to the bin of well-intentioned but futile attempts. It’s not that we should be snobs about art, rather, we should simply have higher standards for both art and definitions. Otherwise, we’re as lowbrow as the art we think is admirable. 

Computer generated 'art.'