Alison Croggon's Near-Perfect Definition of Wisdom
In the comments of the post below, "In a Nutshell," Alison Croogon wrote the following inspirational sentences:
"Yes, of course artists have to be intelligent, but that is not by any means the whole of what's required...Artists are not only concerned with ideas, but with responding to the world around them through the sensual media they use - words, paint, rock, their bodies - in ways which bypass cerebral thinking, which focus on the materiality and sensual properties of the things they use, and which seek emotional as well as intellectual response."
That is as close to a perfect definition of what I mean by wisdom as I am likely to find. To improve on it would only be to add more details to the basic idea that wisdom is the ability to see, appreciate, and express as much of the world as possible using as much of one's self as possible: the intellectual and the emotional, the cerebral and the sensual, the comic and the tragic, the just and the unjust, the heroic and the cowardly, the love and the hate -- the list could go on, of course. But to me wisdom is the embrace of all the possibilities of the world, and express them in such a way as to guide others to see them as well.
Thank you, Alison!
"Yes, of course artists have to be intelligent, but that is not by any means the whole of what's required...Artists are not only concerned with ideas, but with responding to the world around them through the sensual media they use - words, paint, rock, their bodies - in ways which bypass cerebral thinking, which focus on the materiality and sensual properties of the things they use, and which seek emotional as well as intellectual response."
That is as close to a perfect definition of what I mean by wisdom as I am likely to find. To improve on it would only be to add more details to the basic idea that wisdom is the ability to see, appreciate, and express as much of the world as possible using as much of one's self as possible: the intellectual and the emotional, the cerebral and the sensual, the comic and the tragic, the just and the unjust, the heroic and the cowardly, the love and the hate -- the list could go on, of course. But to me wisdom is the embrace of all the possibilities of the world, and express them in such a way as to guide others to see them as well.
Thank you, Alison!
Comments
That is a really amazing sentence by Alison, I agree.
I do have a speculative answer to that question, John. But it's rather complicated. Certain ways of being and perceiving are rigorously repressed in our society (through social and political and economic conditioning, etc) and their very articulation and expression can question received certainties about who and how we are. ("You must change your life!") Such questions inevitably touch on social relationships at some point or other, and social relationships are the raw stuff of politics: who is more or less powerful, who has and who has not.
But I would say all the same that by their nature these touchings are oblique and hostile to given ideologies, although they may have ideologies of their own... what art introduces is not irrationality so much (I do reject the idea that art is irrational) as unpredictability, in a similar way, perhaps, to those complex equations that result in Mandelbrot designs are unpredictable. Hierachical societies don't encourage unpredictable subjects, though obviously they need some people like that, because they are not useful, and because they may challenge the myths that such societies necessarily create around themselves. To question given realities is a profoundly political act. All the same, to look at art only through political lenses is rather limiting. On the other hand, not acknowledging the political nature of art can falsify its power.
I understand that you've written me off as a hopeless cynic and I'm trying to avoid writing you off as a PollyAnna, but you're description of "wise political art" seems naive, IMO.
Politics is about power, plain and simple. Power is not acquired, transferred or challenged by politely demonstrating the humanity of both sides of an issue. Yes, MLK was one side of a specific political fight and demonstrated the 'angel' side of the struggle but without the blatant racism and hate of the Southern whites, his message does not transcend.
Without the brutality of the British, Ghandi is just another really nice guy in a diaper.
As for political art, the middle road that examines both sides of an issue equally may be more responsible and gentile, but runs the risk of being dull and uninspiring - a much worse offense for art, IMO. Brazil, A Modest Proposal, The Ruling Class, Dr. Strangelove, The Player, Bob Roberts, Fight Club, The Crucible, Dogtown, Slaughterhouse Five, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and 1984 certainly paint a gray picture of the world, but they all have in mind a definitive and angry point of focus and that is that there is something wrong.
Political art without teeth is simply polite discussion and polite discussion has never had a whole lot of impact politically.
Your naive Pollyanna,
Scott
I like my political art smart but mean; you like it smart but inclusive.
The Ever Cynical,
D. Hall