Being artsy, techy and auntie next door

Do you think technology brings us together?
 

If you are thinking about the Internet and its applications, such as e-mail, blog, social networking sites, the answer is yes.

Don't you think that the extremists can now find each other and strengthen their cause because of the Internet?
 

You mean, they would have been isolated and contained in the old times?

Kindred spirits can support each other, and thus, feel legitimized. People at the ends of the spectrum are now much more confident than before.
 

I suppose some ends are good ends...

What if the destructive types get together thanks to the ease of communication and search? As a coherent group, they could instill fear and make us distrust each other.
 

We are more divided, paradoxically because of the greater possibilities to be united?

Let me present a different case. When we did not know how to record audio information, the only way we could listen to music was by being at a place where a performer was.
 

All music was live back then.

It was important to know people who could perform, preferably well, or people who knew such people. Put differently, it made great sense to try our best to be in good terms with people in that arena.
 

I bet that the ability to play music instruments used to be a big bargain chip in arranged marriages.

Before Johannes Gutenberg, most manuscripts needed to be copied by hand. That limited the number of copies available.
 

Which meant that if you wanted to read something, you had to know and be in good relationship with the owner of the original or one of the few copies.

Connections matter for story telling, too. You have to know a story teller, and that person must agree to your request of telling a story. The same holds for artisan talents. Suppose chests could be made only by hand and you were very good at it. People will try to be good friends with you so that you would agree to make one for them when they need it.
 

Whereas today, you can go to any store, be nasty to the store personnel, mess around with the display and still get the item.

You can purchase almost anything through the Internet, so you can live without getting in contact with a human being.
 

Except in cases where the presence of your body is essential, such as having illness treated, hair cut, and tattooed. Dancing and kissing, too.

I'd say we are getting more and more alienated. Driving personal cars is a contributing factor in that regard. It is very convenient for doing weekly grocery shopping, traveling under bad weather, reaching remote places, etc., but we don't come into contact with fellow travelers, drivers and conductors.
 

We are free to curse loudly and as much as we like about other drivers on the road, because they wouldn't hear us. We may want to apologize for not giving the right of way when we should have, but there is no way to do so, either.

Technology has allowed us to live without maintaining good social networks. At the same time, it has provided us with the means to overcome the physical distance and to shorten the time required to exchange information. Think about the era when the letters were carried by a running human being.
 

Or a ship... Can't we say that we now have more control over with whom we mingle? We can ignore the owner of the corner grocery store whom we don't like, because we can go to a further store by car or order through the Internet. We can also become a member of all sorts of groups and get to know the members.

It may be a good thing to be among the people that you get along well with, but that poses a problem, too.
 

Again? What's wrong with staying away from people that we don't like? Most likely, the feelings are mutual.

We can't choose our family members, neighbors, classmates and colleagues. We have to deal with people whom we do not like, even abhor, in this age as well.
 

What about telecommuting?

You still need to interact with people who pay for your skills. Besides, if you don't like someone, electronic communication is not necessarily a good solution.
 

I thought you would prefer that, because you could hide your eyes shining with anger and contempt. Plus, your hatred can become more intense just because of the fact that you have to see the person.

That's true... But I think there is art in dealing with people whom we dislike.
 

So?

The more we practice, the better we become at it.
 

I'd say that's the best-case scenario. Some people may just explode. Don't we know a very good example around here?

Stop that thing with your elbow, please... Honestly, I think we are losing numerous hands-on skills because of technological progress. As recorded music has become widespread, we don't need to practice playing a musical instrument as preparation for hosting a dinner with music.
 

We can invite Vladimir Ashkenazy, if we wish, and that without knowing him personally.

No need to procure a piano of his liking either. The same goes with other skills that I referred to---story telling, chest making---and many others.
 

Isn't it good that we get to listen to first-class music with so little money?

Yes and no. Enjoying the very best art performance is no longer the prerogative for the rich and the powerful. It also means that we have much less need for second-, third-, and fourth-rate performers.
 

I see why you are so passionate about this issue.

I think you got it all wrong. Continuing with the case of recorded music, technology has democratized music by making it inexpensive to be exposed to top-notch performances, but also de-democratized by making us much less appreciative of amateurs and second-class professionals.
 

Winners take all... That's also the case with sports.

You got that one right. Because of television broadcasts, we feel less need to go see a real match by mediocre players.
 

Don't you think anything live has value because of that?

If it were not for that, so-so performers in any field would have been long gone. I'm inclined to single out digitization as worrisome development.
 

Comrade, you are one of the people who would be worse than hopeless if it were not for a digital camera.

It's not only photography, but also in other visual arts as well as in music, computer literacy and dexterity count for a lot nowadays.
 

Digitization enables easy entry into the field, and hence, it's democratization. However, in order to make full use of the tools, we are required to have skills that are beyond artistry. Is this where you are going?

Bravo, bravo, bravo...
 

I remember seeing you having a hard time locating an on-off switch of a television.

Come on, when I was three years old? Modern technology replaces much of what was unwritten and considered intuitive. It formalizes and verbalizes such knowledge and skills.
 

That is a necessary step to invent instruments meant for people without good intuition and feel for the art. Can't we say that, as a result, everybody is on the same playing field irrespective of such qualities?

I'm not so sure. The other day, I attended a demonstration session for photo-editing software, and it dawned on me that most attendees spent a tremendous amount of time on editing. They were mostly retirees, so that may have been the reason, but still...
 

What were you doing there?

To learn about this new software, of course. After sitting in the lecture room for a while, I realized that mastering all the new features as they come out is not part of fun for me. For many, photography seems to be about editing, editing and editing. Some at the demonstration talked about how excited they were when they found out that the shots from long ago could be improved with the latest software. For others, it is about clicking when they come across something visual that touches them.
 

Isn't that the difference between pros/semi-pros and others?

Henri was also not keen on developing films, mind you. Occasionally, he would leave them rolled up for years. The act of framing and capturing a fleeting moment, that's what thrills us.
 

Us...? But isn't that a stretch as a description of your endeavor? Buildings and statues do not exactly fleet, you know.

Don't get lost in personal details, comrade. My point is this: technology has made being artsy and techy interchangeable to a great extent.
 

Does that make you uncomfortable?

By definition, the artsy type has few words to explain what they are doing. In contrast, the techy type can overwhelm you with all the jargons, and that includes when their art work is not so great.
 

Well, even before digitization, we had similar problems. Ones who can play the violin well versus others who are better at music theory. Ones who can paint well versus others who are steeped in art history.

I'd say the problem has slightly changed, because the techy ones now have the means to create something that would have been impossible for them. Getting back to the issue of technology and people connections, I also know that before the advent of specialized magazines, books and eventually the Internet, we used to rely much more on connections for information.
 

Are you talking about totalitarian regimes which tend to be challenged in that domain?

Not necessarily. I remember my mother tapping the right person for each kind of information. If you want to know very good restaurants without limits on budget, talk to Monsieur A. If you want to know good-value-for-the-money restaurants, talk to Madame B. If you are looking for a place to have a drink near the theater, talk to Madame C, and so on. Naturally there was a don of information and connections in the neighborhood, and if you had no idea whom to ask you turned to that person.
 

The risk was that your inquiry may be relayed on the string phone, and turn into a big rumor.

Sure, there's always that possibility, whereas you can do any search on the Internet and erase your browsing history. But you must agree that the value of maintaining good personal relationships has gone down.
 

All right... But aren't you happy that you don't have to flash many insincere smiles in order to obtain what you want?

Swimming in the fish bowl

Have you ever looked at your parents' photo albums, or better yet, your grandparents'?

Once they were cute babies, can you believe it! Later, they were youths smiling with hope. Some were even dashing.

You must have looked at other people in the pictures and noticed that they all somehow look alike.

Are you talking about blood relatives?

Not necessarily. It can be anyone, a friend, a neighbor, or just a passer-by. If they are of the same gender and of about the same age, they must have had very similar hair style and clothes. Depending on the culture, style has also been dictated by class and profession.

The look of that particular era, you mean?

I remember asking my mother why they were all clothed in a funny way in the pictures. She said, "That was how we dressed ourselves at that time." When I inquired if she had not thought it strange, she said she had not, because that had been the fashion.

You're trying to tell me that what is normal can become strange over time.

 
We can alternatively say that we are constrained by the society that we live in. Think about the pictures from Europe in the 20s, for example. When we first see them, we think they must have tried hard to be so much alike, but the truth is that it was the only way to be considered stylish. Going punk was certainly not.

Such fashion didn't even occur to them, I bet.

If we had been born in the 20s, we would be dressing like just one of them from that decade, and think nothing of it.

Had it been in the 60s, we would be doing Woodstock.

But had you lived outside North America and Western Europe, Woodstock would have had absolutely nothing to do with you. We are severely conditioned by our own society, although each one of us contribute to what that society is. 

I've got a good example. "Le déjeuner sur l'herbe/The Luncheon on the Grass" by Édouard Manet. It was controversial when shown in 1863.

As a child, I was puzzled by the fact that it was something that many had disapproved of. So was the case with the ballet, "The Rite of Spring"---music by Igor Stravinsky and dance by Vaslav Nijinsky. During its premiere, a number of people angrily walked out.

What about "Lady Chatterley's Lover" by D. H. Lawrence?

I remember reading it avidly and having been disappointed at the end that nothing was outrageous.

We have to be told what made them so notorious.

Even then, we think, "Really? What's wrong with this art? What's wrong with people who denounced them?"

And yet, so many were offended when they were made public.

We also talk about some artists, scientists, and thinkers as having been "ahead of their times." They were so unfortunate that their ideas were accepted only after they were no longer alive.

Aren't they the ones who were unconstrained by the social convention of the day?

Yes, but since almost everybody else was, they were not fully appreciated.

After all, it's better to conform to the society, don't you think?

Life would certainly be easier. On the other hand, accepting everything as is could be awfully boring. It may deprive of our energy to improve our lives within the contraints.

Isn't this your favorite case of double-edged sword? It would be best to accept what you cannot change, but do your best to change what you can.

The problem is: who can differentiate the two, or can we agree on any differentiation. It depends on luck, too. We may succeed in something that was impossible earlier, thanks to a tiny, yet positive, turn of events.

You've succeeded in convincing me that we are much more limited than we think we are.

That reminds me that when I was in primary school, I boasted to my father that I can do any conceivable calculation in the world.

Comrade, you've been telling me that you were precocious, but I never thought it was true.

I had just learned decimal numbers and fractions, and I thought I had exhausted all the possible numerical manipulations.

Oops.

He chuckled rather derisively and took out a piece of paper. He wrote down some mathematical symbols that I had never seen and said, "You mean, you can do this, too?" Needless to say, I was quite disappointed. I thought I had already conquered the world of mathematics.

You tend to have megalomaniac illusions, so no surprise, after all...

I have cast a wide net for advice lately, and noticed that people put unproportionately large weight on what they lack as one of the key ingredients to success on that matter.

We are so prone to think that the grass is greener on the other side?

Looks like it. Suppose people who have had the experience of bungee jumping become good at taking risks in life. Those with weak hearts are not allowed to enjoy the sport, and tend to attribute their risk-averseness to the lack of jumping experience.

But there are many other ways to become a risk-taker.

Exactly. But because the experience is out of their reach, they think that it has handicapped them. They also genuinely believe that bungee jumpers are good at risky ventures. This human nature came to my attention, because they were telling me to cash in on my jumping experience, whereas people with jumping experience weren't.

Their advice is a reflection of what they think is their weakness and what has been bothering them.

What we happen to lack is capable of doing wonders, like a magic wand.

While the people with the experience don't think that their lot is better because of it.

You see, something as important as life strategy is influenced by our personal circumstances, some of which are trivial, but most of us are unaware of the resultant biases.

Can we say that discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, looks, etc. does exist, but people who happen to be discriminated against in that regard tend to overemphasize it?

That's a tough one. According to my logic above, the answer is yes, but my experience, my compassion for the discriminated, and...

Aren't you proving here that you are biased, too?

... I was reading an autobiographical novel about the life in an under-privileged suburbs of one of the world's biggest cities. At some point, I realized that they would be quite happy with the same amount of money and material that they possess if nobody had more money or material. Most of them are immigrants; they are better off in terms of material wealth, but with much less dignity than before coming to the country. 

Is this related to what we have been talking about? 

Trust me, it is... Their relative poverty and lack of opportunity are making them miserable and hopeless. Similarly, the privileged will be awfully unhappy with the same amount of money and material as they have now, had there been a class above them with a gap that is identical to what separates them from the under-privileged at this moment.

They are content due to the knowledge that they are enjoying the best.

All of us are in a small fish bowl, and our happiness is dependent on where in the bowl we are with respect to others in the same bowl. As I said last time, it matters little where that bowl is. This alone is a strong argument for social equality, even at some costs.

And the problem is agreeing on how equal is equal...

The limitations in thoughts that we have been discussing are not imposed explicitly, but implicitly, and there lies the potency. We are unaware of them.

Just as your mother was dressed like anybody else from that time and place, and thought nothing of it then. Aren't implicit constraints better than explicit bans, such as censorship?

I am not sure about that, because we are strongly inclined to react against any rule that forbids us from doing something. We would desire it more than if it were allowed to us.

Anything we cannot get hold of appears more alluring simply because of unavailability.

I told you about bugee jumping already, and the world is replete with such cases. Romeo and Juliet are not the first ones.

I know, almost every culture has a legend or folklore of the same genre. 

By the way, I wonder if Billy didn't think it odd to have an Italian named Juliet, instead of Giulietta. 

Forget about that one. People would think that you are petty and nothing more. Besides, anglicizing, frenchifying, teutonizing, sinofying and so on happen all the time. Some of us are happy doing so with our own names, especially when we immigrate to a country where the language our names are associated with is not an official one.

What about the most fundamental constraints we face in our thoughts, do you know what they are?

Knowing you, you must be thinking about those imposed by languages. 

Well, Ludwig said that he agrees with me, or something to that effect. 

Too late, comrade, he said it before you did...