Art, Change And The Need For Direct Perception Of Large Things

Let’s talk about change.
It’s nothing new: the world is changing, it always has been changing.
And people change as they adapt to their changing worlds.
Artist innovate, develop and experiment. They have always done so.
Can we, therefore, still talk about the urgency of change? Does it make sense to spur artists to take a more active role in todays pressing transitions?
Yes. It makes total sense.

I’m not only convinced that there is a new role for artists, I have seen myself how they can become agents of active change, making impact were politicians, journalists and diplomats give up.
In this blog, I’ll share personal experiences and inspiring examples. But first this question: Why is change difficult? Aren’t we the most adaptive animal on earth?

Yes, indeed, as humans, we are masters at responding to our direct environment. Our senses trigger direct emotions and fast responses. We experiment, learn and evolve in highly demanding and complex social structures. We share our discoveries, collect feedback and develop. Again and again we adapt, continuously.
But what happens when we receive information about structures larger than those in our direct perception? What happens when we hear about fast growing inequality, the end of privacy, global warming?
Well… Actually, nothing.

We live in a world with a total mismatch between our human talent for creativity and adaptation, and the large and abstract challenges that we face. Global Warming has no face to look at, no scent to warn us. There is no body for us to attack, no villain to kill.

Art is the language of feeling and emotion. It’s a beautiful body of translations between the world of volatile passions and material form, it can express wordless feelings, it can embody a deep doubt, curiosity or wonder.
Can artists bring big global challenges into our direct perception? Can an artwork translate abstract numbers about poverty into something we actually feel? Can they turn scientific findings about global warming into something fascinating – something beyond words? Can they create experiences that are tangible and moving, provoking active reactions? Can they imagine something more true than the daily life we adhere to?

I believe they can. Let’s investigate this together.

I hope to hear your thoughts!

Did you ever experience an artwork that made you aware of something urgent?

Lito Skopeliti

I wonder: why we are talking about change if change is a constant situation? It is easy to feel that the current situation we have to deal as individuals and collective beings urges for change. What we are living is a mess and the challenges of the present are most of the times bigger than our ability to correspond efficiently.

At this complicated reality, art stands active in the societal context. Art can bring global issues into perspective, can translate informations into something we can actually feel. But is that the real question? Is the confusion of this world what art is called to express?

Art can do way more. Artists can look at viable alternatives, can give voice to different ideas and perspectives, appreciate their larger implication and offer them back as a gift. Art is able to say another story and this is where its real power is laying, because are the stories that constitute the present reality what needs to be changed.
- Merlijn Twaalfhoven
  
  Good point. Not the “expression of our confusion” but “breaking patterns that create a false order” and offering an abundance of alternatives can be an impactful quality of art.
Maja M

Interesting post.
I will continue to answer the direct questions from the end of the text, but I need make a swift digression.

As I read your thread, I feel there is a fault in the premise presented in it. In my opinion, it is a simplified presumption that creating CHANGE should be a defining notion needed for and/or leading to the creation of art that has a direct action or impact on society.

Not limiting myself to the bounds of performative art, in the course of Western creation, artists have been creating works that were not done with the sole motive to induce tangible CHANGE , yet the work they did has impacted society. Think of Billie Holiday singing ”Strange Fruit” (giving her unique voice to the poem of Abel Meeropol ) about the tortures slaves endured in the Southern states and revolting the white supremacists in the USA, or the ” Diary of Anne Frank”, written as a private diary of a young girl, yet it became a vessel for people to understand the nature and all the horror of the Holocaust.

All this to say, it is my view that all good art in itself is or can be change inducing, yet not all work done with a goal to create change end up being good art. It is my belief that all honest, researched and skillful creation aiming at a clear topic will and can induce change, yet creating art with the foremost and sole premise to induce change mostly leads to promotion of one sided ideas, and to creation of ”pamphlet” works.

As to answer your question – yes, I have, in a variety of media. All of those snippets or sparks I tend to look upon as formative impulses that change my perception of the world, and therefore, the work I do.

Cheers,
Maja Maletkovic
- Merlijn Twaalfhoven
  
  Indeed. When the intention of an artist is to create a specific effect or result, he or she narrows the work down to becoming something functional. Let’s find artworks that are not functional but impactful, and let’s investigate disfunctionality as a quality!
  - Lito Skopeliti
    
    Art can be impactful in multiple ways. Lets do not forget the propagandist art of the Nazis and its impact. Indeed change cannot be itself the goal for an artist, yet the ability of an artwork to express inspirations linked with (personal and societal) change should not be underestimated!
    As it is well putted already, art can work as “formative impulse that change the perception of the world”- the challenge is to turn this perception to something better.
cramdoufham@gmail.com

Thank you for the thoughts.

Let’s talk about change indeed ; however, I question our impact on it.

As you have mentioned in the beginning “It’s nothing new: the world is changing, it always has been changing.” With or without our contribution, our intelligence or our understanding of complex mechanisms or the absence thereof. For example: Global warming is entirely caused by humans, ergo solvable vs. Global warming is partially caused by humans, ergo partially solvable.

I believe the existence of our species is mainly driven by two contradicting factors: Intelligence and Ignorance. Accordingly, the benefit of change is subject to the predominance of one of both factors. Ignorance is the absence of Intelligence and as none of us is perfect we all are ignorant to a certain extend. The power of art lies, in my opinion, in the detachment from those two factors, it is a connecting force that can be interpreted independently, a force with no intention besides creation itself. In the act of creation there lies the source of change.

Looking forward to creating with you,

Marc Mâhfoud

The coming months, I want to share my thoughts and concerns about the role of art and the artist in the world. This dialogue is part of a larger project, the Citizen Artist Incubator. The C.A.I. will connect writers, thinkers, scientists and artists who share a common goal: to support positive, active change in the world.

Merlijn Twaalfhoven

Sign up to our newsletter!

Art, Change And The Need For Direct Perception Of Large Things

Share this entry