Live with intention or exist by default
Nearly everything exists on a spectrum, and like yin and yang, there is a drop of the other in each extreme. This is especially true for human traits and the way we evaluate our experience, and even though we can create borders through definitions, it doesn't mean those borders actually exist, as they are like lines on a map that divide up the globe. We can act as if they are real, we can argue and fight over them, but at the end of the day, they are social constructions -
the plants and animals do not care and do not adhere to our imaginary lines.
In the last couple of days, I have had several conversations around AI and the definition of art, both on-chain and off with a friend of mine. One of the conversations was about AI being able to perhaps visualize the torment in the mind of someone with schizophrenia. While it would be incredibly interesting to see, it also raises several questions. One of these would be in regard to consent - can a schizophrenic give consent to see that level of their most intimate selves for public consumption?
My friend added another wrinkle similar, where after a forever ongoing discussion about oppression and power dynamics, I mentioned that if two adults start a relationship and one is the boss, it is seen as one exerting their influence over the other. However, if someone is considered to be in a group that is oppressed, does that mean that they can never be in a relationship with someone who is from another group? If for example, black people are considered disadvantaged and white people privileged, is it appropriate for them to have a sexual relationship? Isn't it just white people taking advantage of the disadvantaged? What about differences in socio-economic terms - can a poor person date a rich person.
Interesting, eh?
My friend added, what about people who are mentally disadvantaged - are they able to have relationships with people who are not? And then, where is the line?
We are all disadvantaged on at least some of the spectrums that are important to us, so what does this mean in terms of the relationships we have? And, then, as I mentioned to someone recently, we live in a world where we are filtering and getting curated content that reinforces our group identity and lets us choose exactly what we want, but... don't opposites attract? Having things in common is likely necessary in some respects, but how many and how closely need it match and when is it a weakness for the relationship and our experience, rather than a strength? After all, if we are all looking to learn more and get wider experience, we are limiting ourselves by spending all of our time with people who know what we know and do what we do.
And this creates a massive problem in the society we have created, because none of us are singular in trait and we are ultimately infinitely divisible across anything that we might find important to us and all spread across spectrums - none of us are the same, even if we are similar and, we all have power of others, and they over us.
Easier to live the life of a hermit?
And how does this all relate to the conversation on art? Well, doesn't intention matter? What is a person's intention has to be taken into consideration. Is a beautiful sunset artistic? In my opinion it is not, though it could inspire a person to intend to create something artistic. It doesn't really matter what the result is or whether it is high art or that of a child, if the intention is there to create something using their skills, it appears on the artistic spectrum somewhere. This means that AI generated art might be art at some level, but where it appears on the spectrum might be heavily skewed to the less artistic end.
And then, what about seeing inside the mind of a schizophrenic to expose their torment? Is there an intention to create there, or is it the output of an uncontrolled mind, with no directed thought behind it. As I mentioned to my friend, are they then the artist, or the brush with which an image is painted? There can be original thought there and it is created in the mind, but without the intention to create something specific, no matter how beautiful on terrible is produced, where does it appear on the scale of art? We cannot control the sunset which is not art, but if we cannot control our mind, is what it produces artistic?
The fallback position is that art is "subjective", yet all of our experience is subjective, no matter what we are experiencing. Yes, there might be an objective truth involved, but we cannot experience it because we are filtering everything continually through the myriad filters with all of those sliders moving across the spectrums of what makes us who we are. We can argue about what art is, but even that is ultimately an unanswerable question, so what we have to consider for human experience is where the definitions of art are, what are the bounds?
If art is about pushing boundaries, shouldn't we also start considering the boundaries that we are defining ourselves by and the way we are continually labelling things to create division? If we are looking to become more inclusive, shouldn't we be removing the labels, blurring the lines? If we want to spread power and reduce the stigma around disabilities, shouldn't we be mixing more, not reducing the opportunity to mix by defining more rules as to who is allowed to interact with who? Doesn't the push cultural appropriation fall down when looking at the spectrums? Especially in terms of art.
Rather than best intentions, we seem to continually drive worst intentions and as such, people are punished for exploring others, and improving themselves. We become more siloed, less trusting, more exclusive, less creative and have access to an increasingly limited pool of opportunity. If we are looking to increase opportunity, we should be taking barriers to do so down, not putting more up by adding more lines on the map.
But, this isn't easy to do, because inevitably, there are going to be arguments and regardless of best intentions, mistakes will happen. And, in a world where even slight mistakes are punished without thought to intention or nuance, it is controlling and restrictive, making people not even want to try to be creative, lest they offend someone and get cancelled.
In order to accept difference in others, we first have to come to terms that they might not be that different after all, as we share so many traits with others, albeit at different points on the spectrum - but still on the spectrum. We keep adding layers of complexity and hurdles to jump over in order to interact with each other, rather than taking away the invisible barriers to interact freely. We shackle ourselves to and call it cultural awareness, and the results are increasingly poor, even if unintended.
Perhaps this is why there is such a lowering of the bar of what constitutes art, because there are so many tiny defined barriers to push, that everything has become taboo.
All inclusive and uncreative.
Rules are made to be broken, but that doesn't mean more rules need to be created, just to have something to break.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]