The Necessity of Art to Freedom

In America, we are living in an age when millions, excuse me, billions of taxpayer dollars are funneled into bullets, bombs, and luxurious embassies for U.S. emissaries around the world. The necessity to do so may be subject to debate, but one has to wonder given all those tax dollars, who is getting shortchanged? Should more government money be spent on education? Perhaps if school funding were more than an issue once an election cycle, senior government officials, by virtue of their education, would have seen 9/11 as inevitable and taken the necessary steps politically (if not militarily) to prevent the terrible events of that day.

In the need to fulfill many government services, federal and state legislators routinely shortchange public schools. School lunch programs, the athletic department for all non-essential sports (only football is essential, obviously) and the art departments are usually the first to fall in the battle for funding. But are these programs even necessary? Yes, they are all vitally important. However, if school administrators must decide upon which of these departments are most necessary, especially which one is most valuable to freedom, then the art department may be the most valuable.

Though art is often taught in pre-school through middle school, it is done so almost as an afterthought. By the time a student reaches high school, training in art is not likely to be offered, presumably because art is not as valued as math, science, or history. (Let’s put aside America’s abysmal scores in these subjects for the time being which would otherwise lead us to question the value of those subjects as well.) Among those subjects, though, history is nothing like math or science, and history is not particularly crucial given America’s One-Billion-Hamburgers-Sold, consumer-driven society that routinely ignores historical facts. Why then is history required for high school students? Because it teaches them something, particularly the way the prevailing local government wants students to develop their worldview.

Traditionally with art, it has been taught because of what it does where what it does is necessary in safeguarding freedom. We should be requiring art classes in high school because developing artistic talents aid in the development of critical thinking and communication skills. Art teaches us to think in different ways, providing us with an ability to evaluate the world around us. There is also the matter of what art does for students as a means of self-expression.

Although art is a form of communication primarily associated with visual arts, it encompasses so much more. Art also comes in the form of music, literature, and our bodily movements. Art can be found in architecture and other forms of technology as well. As a form of communication, it is a language that coveys lessons and messages that, “…succeeds where words fail” (Lynn Olsen). And it is a language every bit as important as mathematics. As Albert Einstein said, “The value of an education…is not the learning of many facts, but the training of the mind to think of something that cannot be learned from textbooks.” Is it ethical to deprive a student of the unique voice and ear art has to offer?

What are the implications of withdrawing art appreciation from our schools? Without the ability to recognize and decipher the language of art, we open ourselves to manipulation. As columnist Lynne Olsen once noted, “Totalitarian rulers recognize the power of art.” The Nazi’s, for example, instituted strict rules upon artists with only themes sanctioned by the state being allowed for the sake of manipulating public opinion. If a student does not learn to think in different ways, they become prone to monotonously linear thinking, and easily swayed to believe any truth a government may want to invent.

 

Case in point 1: American cable news. Cue the Fox News logo; red, white, and blue. Not only are these colors the colors of the American flag, they are primary colors well known to lure flies into spiders’ webs. The Fox News channel logo is quite intentionally, and they have the rating to prove it. As stock quotes and headlines tick by, a once ever present “Terror Alert” graphic reminded the public that war is permanent. Down the fauxhole our taxpayer dollars go.

Case in point 2: Advertisers use art to manipulate consumers all the time. All one has to do is mention the words “Coca-Cola,” and immediately, flowing white cursive lettering on a red background – a color combination know to invoke hunger and thirst – forms in one’s mind. But who would know to resist this application of art without any art training? Without critical thinking and communication skills, anyone is at risk of being open to propaganda and advertising. If students do not learn to be creative, conventional wisdom cannot be challenged, and what America is left with is a population susceptible to corporations, fascism or some other form of tyranny.

Many tyrants have imposed restrictions on artists. Art as a form of self-expression is vehemently opposed, leading to a culturally bleak existence. An existence without art, as artist Zel Brook put it, “…is the same as telling us that we should go through our days ignoring our senses, with endless days of frustration…with no hope the situation will ever change.”

In the 18^th century, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, surrounded by the constant turmoil and conflict in Europe, explained that engaging in the arts is the only way to release one’s self from an otherwise painful existence. Another philosopher, the ill-regarded Karl Marx, felt that repressing an individual’s expression with art will ultimately result in noncompliance or violent revolt, given that in totalitarian or fascist societies, the public has no outlet for social criticism. Likewise, teenagers who have not been instructed in art face limited means of expressing themselves or will become the target of criticism by their classmates when they buck the status quo when they do express themselves in a unique manner. Is the American teenager’s obligatory rebellion or fits of depression a product of artistic repression, from not being heard?

Art helps express the ineffable. Cathy McGuire, an art therapist in Portland, Oregon, says, “The physical act of creation connects our bodies with the external world…what we are really making is ourselves.” As any parent can attest to, it’s hard enough to communicate with their children. Limiting the means by which they can communicate only complicates issues. Surely, parents would rather understand their children than roll their eyes at them. Or would parents simply rather their children be compliant with their governing beliefs? With parents often attempting to mold their children in their own image, I suppose they should then be happy with the disposal of any art department. Why bother questioning advertisers who will attempt to manipulate everyone into buying their products, the safety or efficacy of those products be damned? Politicians, men of power who love nothing more than more power, why wouldn’t they want to cut funding for the arts in public schools; they simply don’t want people thinking for themselves if they expect to remain within a sphere of influence. 

That is the problem faced with art. Without artists, the world is a colorless and dull world shaped by the demands of the figures of authority. Whether or not such a world is the world we should be living in is another question, but without all the practical tools and languages with which to debate the question, how can we be sure of the truth?

Few people will dispute the pleasure of freedom. However, it should be realized that freedom and artistry cannot live without each other. Is it necessary for the arts to be taught in high school? Yes, it is vital to everyone’s freedom if freedom is in fact what we value. 

People Have Rights Ideas Do Not

“Why won’t you die?”

“Beneath this mask there is more than just flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea...and ideas are bulletproof.” – V in V for Vendetta

I’ve been coming across a recurring theme when perusing the social media of New Atheist who are desperately trying to seem compassionate while dismissing the foolhardy beliefs of theists; the theme that people deserve rights or respect but that their beliefs or ideas do not. I seem to keep hearing, “People have rights. Ideas do not.”

My first question is this: How do you divorce beliefs or ideas from the people that hold them particularly when beliefs or ideas make up the core of a person’s identity? Many people identify themselves along the lines of their beliefs, such as being Christian, Jew or Muslim but also along national, ethnic or social lines. If you give no rights to ideas or have no respect for the ideas a person holds, exactly who or what are you extending rights or respect to? Should we have extended rights or respect to Adolph Hitler the being as divorced from his genocidal tendencies? ‘Cause that’s where the argument winds up going.

The problem is this: Once you try to divorce people from their beliefs and ideas, the rights and respect left to bestow are upon the shell of a human being. As long as more than one person is around, there exists a social construct from which people set themselves apart from the other person (that is, identity). If that ability to form an identity is removed, all that is left is a biological human being who for all intents and purposes might as well be an empty shell. In trying to deny identity – or at least an identity New Atheists do not like – is to deny an aspect of humanity that people often use to position themselves in a special place within the animal kingdom. I find it peculiar that (liberal) New Atheists want to bestow rights and grant respect to the biological entities that people are while at the same time denying that a fetus is a person or that it is okay to terminate a brain-dead patient. What is a person? we are inclined to ask New Atheists. There appears to be an inconsistency in the New Atheist line of reasoning regarding rights and respect (at least when the reasoning is taken to its fullest extent).

I contend that beliefs and ideas are equally important if not more important than the people who hold them.* First, because as I’ve implied, people are their beliefs and ideas so long as there are social interactions. Moreover, when people put their beliefs and ideas into action, beliefs and ideas exit the realm of abstraction and into the realm of recorded history. We also tend to remember people for their beliefs and their ideas instead of the people as mere biological entities.

[*But not by necessity since people are not important by necessity. Refer to my blog Why I Am Not A Humanist for clarification.]

Second, I have to wonder, where would the world be without beliefs and ideas? The answer to that question is a double-edged sword, of course, as without beliefs or ideas, human beings would have never invented the wheel or religion. In the case of religion, look at what happens when some people, such as ISIS, with particular beliefs or ideas do not afford any rights or respect to the beliefs of others; personhood is withheld from a victim and a beheading or sexual slavery is the consequence. It is easy for New Atheists to say that they don’t have to grant rights to or respect theistic beliefs and ideas, but granting a person rights and respect is surely a difficult thing to do when the theist’s beliefs and ideas are dismissed. Kindly reference pretty much all of recorded history if you don’t believe me.

Granted, it seems obvious that some beliefs or ideas are more valid than others but how do we choose which are important and which are not? We can easily say that freedom is a good idea that should be granted some rights or respect, but most of us are saying that from the position of relatively free people with no one to club us for agreeing. Naturally, we also have to ask exactly how free we are supposed to be to retain any hope that freedom is indeed a good idea. But, you never see New Atheists – or anyone else for that matter – getting down to these kinds of nitty-gritty details. If there are any difficulties in the New Atheist assertion that beliefs and ideas should be formed only when there is suitable evidence for them, they are such that beliefs must always be open to revision (easier said than done) to say nothing of the difficulties in trying to determine exactly when an inference based upon evidence is deemed justifiable. I would also challenge any New Atheist to prove that all the beliefs they hold are warranted by evidence. To this New Atheists will likely reply that most of the beliefs or ideas people hold are harmless until certain – particularly theistic – beliefs or ideas are put into action. But as I’ve said many times before, there is no historical evidence that indicates a global community of atheists would be any better than the world such as it is now. So why is this belief being held onto to fiercely by New Atheists? But I digress.

I’m not saying rights or respect should be granted to ideas out of hand; certainly ideas – all ideas – should be open to examination and criticism. But New Atheists need to concede that when they criticize ideas, they are criticizing a person. That person may become offended, which is fine since there is no legislation or unwritten societal rule that prohibits all offensive criticism. People don’t have a right to not be offended.* Oh, so I guess sometimes people don’t have rights. Hmph!

[*At least not in the U.S.; the EU is working on it, though.]

“People have rights. Ideas do not,” is in itself an idea which in no way need be granted any rights or respect. It’s one of quips that looks cute at first glance but loses meaning if you think about it for more than a second. There certainly isn’t any evidence for what New Atheists are trying to assert here. Better luck next time, gang.