Artistically Challenged
Aug 26th, 2008 | By Katie Kish | Category: CommentaryCreating a gender equal group diversifies your physical attributes. What it doesn’t diversify are the thoughts and activities of your group. Getting more people who are interested in science and math - but are simply the other gender isn’t really doing anything for the bigger picture. Besides, I think we’ve already created a more or less safe space for women to come into - they just need to be encouraged. We haven’t made our groups and centers a safe space for some. I think focusing more on advancing our movement to be more inclusive to the arts and social sciences is far more important than encouraging women. All of our events and gatherings are totally open to women who are interested in coming - however, for the art and social science community there is rarely a place for them to fit in.
We tend to have a pretty scientific crowd, and that’s not surprising. Generally speaking a lot of those who are interested in skepticism and the secular outlook on life are science majors of some sort. Evolution, stem cell research, abortion etc. can all be justified and argued as valid with science and are often argued as wrong and invalid by the religious. So it doesn’t come as a surprise to see those with a science background falling into secularism.
What we need are events that cater to this other side. There is definitely the market for it - there are sacreligeous artists everywhere, poets writing about vast voids of religious nothingnesses, social scientists writing about the psychology and philosophers wanting to hear about ethics. Not only do they fit into our mandates by being secular and asking questions but they are promoting and exercising freethought and more importantly freedom of expression!
Their art is breaking boundaries of the church and religion being infallible, and there is something to be said about the effectiveness of this controversy. Not only are people using their feelings about religion to create something with aesthetic value but they are also reaching out to the emotions of people who haven’t been able to do that.
There is also the possibility of bringing the two together so that even more people can find an emotional connection to the works. Personally when I see a picture or a painting or a complex biosphere or environment I am filled with awe. I am reminded that something so magnificent has developed over time. Something so complex is growing right in front of me, and I take advantage of it far too often. I connect emotionally.
The same (or similar thing) can be said for someone who sees a recreation of a galaxy or a cell. Atheistic humanism seriously needs this sense of value and allowance of these important and deep feelings. Reason has enabled us to work out in our minds what needs to be done and to devise strategies to follow through with these things. But feelings and passion give us impetus to act and keeps us from falling into that black never ending hold of emptiness. There is something to hold onto, the awe, wonder and beauty of the universe that can be expressed through a painting as a way to constantly remind us of what we’re actually living in and being a part of every day.
That’s enough fluff talk from me for like a century…. - I’ve had enough of all these scientists coming together and acting like they have all the answers to the world. The world wouldn’t be the same and would be a stone cold rock without art. So why aren’t we incorporating that into our movement more?
Here is my wish, want and challenge to all the students out there or people running little groups - do something for your artists! Hold an art gallery, do a poetry reading, start an arts and crafts night (okay, maybe not that one…) or do events that caters to this crowd! Enough of this BS about bringing women into the movement - we’re here. And more will come, you just have to give them time. But we’re not making it easy for the artists and social scientists, and I think this is a far more important task. It’s an entire culture and social world that we’re not including. By excluding them, we’re shutting a lot of possibilities off on ourselves.
Last 5 posts by Katie Kish
- Pledge Your Virginity to Your Father - November 9th, 2008
- Science Types and Their EQ - November 2nd, 2008
- This term “fundamentalism” - October 20th, 2008
- I Used to Love Jesus - October 4th, 2008
- Nica’s Nothing Turns Out to be My Something - October 3rd, 2008
Loading ...
As an artist and Atheist would suggest that the best way to attract more of our numbers is to dare us to join you. I would guess that most of us (myself included) do not always feel capable of participating in some of the more in-depth scientific discussions simply because we lack certain fundamental references that members of the scientific community take for granted. That isn’t a criticism; rather, it is what makes us look upon scientists with a sense of awe. But I think there are many artists who want to participate in the greater conversation. And like the scientific folk we want to be able to discuss our rational and secular beliefs using our most eloquent and expressive tools. I don’t think it is a question of “making it easy” for us to participate; on the contrary, our best work usually comes through challenge and struggle. What prevents a lot of artists from joining in is that overtly secular work has a hard time finding an audience. I’m really not aware of a forum that brings together secular artists to display and discuss their work, but that would be a good first step in bringing such artists out of the woodwork.
[Reply]
Poetry reading should be the lowest on the list of artistic things to do.
Visual art should be at top, followed by dance, then music, then poetry.
It’s just really friggin’ hard to do poetry or music right.
[Reply]
I also disagree 100% with this:
The world is pretty damn interesting on its own. However, I do agree with your sentiment that we do need more art.
[Reply]
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Natian’s suggested rankings of various art forms. (I note also that he is missing several. No theater? No prose? Also, “visual art” is an incredibly broad field, as is dance and music. But I digress.) The problem with such rankings is that they are entirely subjective. Everyone puts their favorite at the top of the list. However, I do agree with two of Mr. Natian’s statements:
1) It is really hard to do poetry and music right. That’s what makes them worthy art forms. What would be the point if everybody could do it equally well?
2) The world is indeed pretty damn interesting on its own. That’s why we artists do what we do.
I apologize for all the pretentiousness. It’s hard to avoid.
[Reply]
Katie Kish Reply:
August 27th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I think it’s really hard to do any art form… I can’t paint anything worth anyones viewing if my life depended on it. I find creating and playing music a whole hell of a lot easier. But you’re right - I think ranking art is… totally unproductive.
im cool with pretentiousness.
[Reply]
+1 to Christopher. Let’s not rank and rule out art forms.
As an atheist with lots of interest in both science and the arts, I totally agree with this post. I would go to a talk about the life and works of Frida Kahlo as happily as I would go to one about biology curriculum standards. There’s plenty of atheist/secular context, as well as worthwhile art appreciation, that would be great for the skeptical community.
[Reply]
Being new to these types of discussions I understand fully your need for art and social science. Even as a scientist in training I find it hard sometimes to follow along the scientific logic and philosophies you hold. It often seems foreign to me .Not much is done to facilitate new comers into the “movement.” My inquiries are usually met with angry rebuttals with language I’ve never heard before. I am usually told something along the lines of “Go read Dawkins and then come back to me.” (I’ll do exactly that once I figure out who he is AHAHAHA). If scientific language is hard for even a scientist in training to follow, how approachable is it to the everyone else?
I agree with Kish, you guys need to focus on more universal ways of expressing yourselves. I often find scientific discussion devoid of emotion (except for anger) and it is usually a total turn off (I don’t come seeking anger and a depressed world view). There often seems to be no explanation for opponents to scientific argument; all that ever is said is that they exist and they are wrong. In the debate for between religion and atheism something has to be said about the passion and devotion people have to their Gods and tradition. You guys usually blog about religious fallacies and then have comment wars over the internet, but having a face to face talk with someone who is deeply religious you can’t help by envy their devotion and passion (if only I were as dedicated to something that important to me). What better way to facilitate that kind of devotion and passion to the “movement” but through a less mechanistic approach?
[Reply]
Katie Kish Reply:
August 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
THeir devotion and passion? or their incredibly deep conditioning that will haunt them for the rest of their lives even if they want to get rid of it? We see it as different things.
[Reply]
Not a Robot Reply:
August 27th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I think what I meant was, look at their art and their emotion. The Sistine Chapel, St. Peter’s Basilica, the intricate geometrical inlay of mosque floor, poems prose painting pictures, they have built this emotional connection to their religion. I find atheism sometime hard to want to accept even though I know its true. There’s just an emptiness to wanting to boil everything down to the science of it. You guys need to talk more about just humans and less about the science of humans.
[Reply]
Christopher Reply:
August 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Religious devotion has indeed inspired extraordinary works of art. I would wager, however, that for every quality work of relgious art you can find at least one equally worthy piece the creation of which had nothing to do with religion at all (or, more likely, was inspired by oppression by religion).
I would also argue that religion has inspired some of the most dull, insipid, lifeless art around. Have you ever tried to listen to Christian rock music? Or observed up close one of those tacky paintings of Jesus on the cross, where the eyes follow you around the room? It’s just bad stuff.
Furthermore, I hate it when we Atheists are accused of wanting to rid the universe of mystery, to “boil everything down” to cold hard fact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everything is made of cold hard facts. It is in discovering those facts that we reveal the true beauty of the universe.
[Reply]
There is a growing trend now and interest in the convergence of Art and Science! In fact it is a reoccurring theme I run into at my school. I missed a huge lecture this summer, i forget what its calls or who spoke, and only now do I regret it immensely. http://www.ocad.ca/about_ocad/news_events/newsroom/news_releases/OCAD_Portage_at_Science_Rendezvous.htm is an example of this convergence, and it’s one of many events that happen all year round. Here are some great lectures that might interest some of you, http://www.ocad.ca/about_ocad/news_events/visiting_experts.htm. Now this is not an ad for OCAD, but its just to show you guys that kish is right. It is happening outside and it is lacking in the world of secularism and skepticism. In my experiences as an artist with these communities (secularist/skepticism/whatever else you might it) I often feel I would have nothing to say in discussion. Firstly, because my interest in most of the topics discussed is missing, not to say that I wouldn’t accept what is being said, but my input wouldn’t add to the crowds ideas in the way i feel that everyone would understand. For example I attended a skeptics lecture on homeopathic medicine a few months ago, although i did agree with the speakers stance, I felt he did not answer a lot of questions that I had, and (probably more importantly) I did not feel comfortable asking them in front of the crowd. I feared that my questions would be taken as trite or irrelevant to the discussion because they were not “scientific”. Secondly is a difference in tone, and i mean overall tone of the secular and skeptic community, I might be falling into a generalization here but again, these are my experiences. I am used to discussions not involving really aggressive immovable stances (by stances sometimes I might mean “people”), but ones with openness and understanding. That is not to say that the artistic community doesn’t have any, there is PLENTY of heated debate, it is rife with it, but it is not the same kind of tone even when we’re at each others throats. Coming from an outsider, who completely agrees with many of the objectives of the movement, I find speaking up very intimidating. You don’t necessarily want to talk to someone in a fit of rage now don’t you? (Einstein’s! —> inside joke). If you want to attract other communities, people in differing fields, and just other people in general, don’t start a rambling on about “them vs. us!” when they ask “what is it that you guys do?” or when they don’t understand. It’s a real turn off. Although to be diplomatic, there is total reason to be in a fit of rage, but there’s a time and a place.
Now! Here’s the thing I also want to say! Art is sooooooo much like science, and secularism/skepticism/whatever else. In the sense that it is often not understood, misconstrued, misrepresented and even ostracized! Sometimes by the same people. Now isn’t THAT interesting? Interesting that the artist is much like the atheist, skeptic, scientist or whatever else. Why do i consistently get the sense I’m getting “taught” when i speak to some of you guys, when i KNOW what you guys are saying? Stop it…its annoying and makes me not want to play with you guys
….
i literally forgot what i just wrote and had to re-read the whole thing. But yeah you are right Kish, It seems the center really caters to a specific crowd instead of its ideal and ideas at times. Playing the same music to the same crowd doesn’t promote outside interest.
[Reply]
Katie Kish Reply:
August 27th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
A.H I totally agree with you. … I think the most annoying thing about a lot of atheists is that they’re so arrogant and want to teach the world everything. I wrote a thing a while about about why I hate atheists, and that was my number one reason. Although I know I am guilty of doing it too. And it can end is some REALLY bad conversations! (Einsteins!!!)
[Reply]
I also disagree 100% with this:
[The world wouldn’t be the same and would be a stone cold rock without art.]
The world is pretty damn interesting on its own. However, I do agree with your sentiment that we do need more art.
there you go… misunderstood, misconstrued, misrepresented and even (not in this case) ostrasized, try living without design mr. poster maker
[Reply]
Katie Kish Reply:
August 27th, 2008 at 9:32 am
<3 you're a little hard to understand sometimes...
ps. agnes painted the most beautiful thing i’ve ever seen. i hope she doesn’t give it away before you get home. because it’s amazing.
[Reply]
Katie:
I also think it would be great to bring the arts and social sciences into the picture. It would be amazing to have various types of art shows. It’d be damn cool to have some sort of event for visual and performance arts. That’d be amazing!
Another big thing is addressing “spiritualism”. The exploration of the discovery of self, knowledge, what matters, what is moral, etc. The practice of meditation has been demonstrated by Western science to produce many benefits for practitioners, and centuries worth of first person reports indicate that committed practice can produce some of the most profound “religious” experiences in the absence of faith. I personally would love to see secular groups bringing in secular buddhist philosophers/practicers to inform and teach secularists of the many fully secular wise ideas and practices that have come from the Eastern wisdom-based traditions, as well as the good ideas pertaining to wisdom, self-awareness, good living and morality that have come from Western thinking.
Secularist groups are, for good reason, generally focused on political activism. Secular activism, though, is only part of the picture. There is a huge need for the creation of secular communities that promote growth, joy, and community. These are the sorts of things that could be greatly facilitated by actively opening up to intellectual coherent means of “spiritualism”. And art also belongs snuggly in this effort as it is an expression of the self and an attempt at creating and communicating the beautiful.
Atheists have had the reason-side of things covered for eons, and our communicative efficacy has surged greatly in recent years. The big gaping hole is the “spritual” and humanities side.
Also, getting women is everything. If you get the women, you get the men for free
(Actually, the men will often be willing to pay :)). If the women come, so long as the organization does not swing past the unisex border over to effemininity, the men will come. And then when couples start having kids and a multigenerational community is formed, you have a serious deep community.
[Reply]
Joe Reply:
August 27th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Actually, thats been one of the hardest demographics to attract, families. Parents, and especially, single parents, simply don’t have much time on their hands between work and kids, so making it easy and attractive for them to come out, when they have a spare moment, is something we really need to work on.
When you are retired or in college, its easy to be involved and we have lots of those types around. But yeah, we need women…. granted I’m a bit biased on that one. But creating a community with wider interests that just science will attract all kinds of people.
[Reply]
Katie Kish Reply:
August 27th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
We’re trying, we’ll be holding an Art show sponsored by CFI in February, and hopefully doing an event in december that is catered toward this crowd rather than a science lecture. *crosses fingers* ANd you’re right, spiritualism is a hard topic for people in our building because they’re worried about sounding too fluffy or supernatural, and lets face it - for those who don’t know what it is… spiritualism can sound a little supernatural.
I think a huge reason churches are so successful are because they are so damn good at creating a sense of comfort and community. I think bringing the art community in would really help us all in just chilling out and becoming close in that sense.
[Reply]
Not a Robot Reply:
August 27th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Ron, I totally agree with you.
My biggest turn off from what I’ve encountered with the secular movement is the sometimes militant political rhetoric. I don’t like it in religion and I don’t like it in secularism. There’s no positivity in it. It is not that I am afraid of controversy, I just don’t believe it fosters a good environment for discussion, my brain shuts-off in the midst of temper tantrums.
To expand on Kish’s point about churches being warm and welcoming, I have to say that everytime I’ve been to a church I’ve never felt threatened or stupid, they are indeed good at that (maybe it’s the lighting or the candles, i dont know) A little fluff kind of soften the sometimes harsh edges of scientific reality, especially for those who are making their way from the church to the secular world.
[Reply]
I am an artist and although I’ve never described myself as an atheists, it’s becoming clear that for all intents and purposes, I probably am.
What I am seeing as a potential problem, in terms of converting the masses, is the need for educated people, probably scientists, who can lay the facts out in ways the non-scientific can grasp. Of course the bigger problem is that religion offers an absolute answer (God did it) while science, by default, investigates possible answers and so often says “we don’t know for sure”.
See my new Ray Comfort creationist cartoons.
[Reply]
It’s not just that religion provides AN answer. It provides many answers: how did all this happen? (more importantly) how should we live? why should we live that way? to what ends to be live this way? what happens after death? what is important?
And also extremely important, it provides a social context in which we understand, enact and pursue these types of answers.
Meaning, purpose, social identity, understanding of the world, the self, morality, being a part of a group, and being a part of a transcendent project. And lets not forget the negative factors that discourage defection: social ostracism, cognitive dissonance, loss aversion (e.g., previous investment in the beliefs), fear of a meaning vacuum and directionlessness, etc.
[Reply]
You’re very right Katie, the way to further diversify thought is not by gender, but by creativity. The one thing that I do disagree with though and that seems to have been said a number of times here is that science is boring. I don’t think the average scientist is the introvert unsocial narrow-minded person Hollywood makes them out to be. Some geeks might be scientists, but all most scientists are not geeks. People that I consider to be the greatest scientists of the modern world include Steven Pinker, David Attenborough (almost scientist), Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Richard Dawkins, Richard Leakey to name a few, and these are surely amongst the most colourful of people.
More to the subject thought, your article reminded me of the following quote by Bansky:
“The thing I hate the most about advertising is that it attracts all the bright, creative and ambitious young people, leaving us mainly with the slow and self-obsessed to become our artists. Modern art is a disaster area. Never in the field of human history has so much been used by so many to say so little.”
Maybe the problem is not the polar difference between art and science, but maybe most pedants reject art because it’s often so unscientific. Personally, the thing that annoys me the most about mainstream art is it’s attachment to Freudianism.
[Reply]
And y’all did it anyway!
I have been involved with the Biotechnology Expo as a judge of the dramatic entries. There are also categories for music, visual art, storytelling, journalism and business along with the expected categories in the scientific specialties. There is plenty of room for arts in the sciences, logic and freethought community.
Freethought is thinking freely. Artists certainly have to learn how to think freely, without constraints and to defy conventions in their quest to translate the world into art. Artists are actually more likely to be spiritual non-theists than are scientific types (though I don’t have any data to back up this claim).
I think it should be easy to attract artiists to freethought. Emphasize opportunities for expression and refrain from commenting until one truly understands what is being expressed!
There is a tendency among atheists to be negative. Heck, it’s in the name, and most of us became atheists by rejecting religion. Why not relish the fact that you are now free from superstition, and start enjoying that freedom, rather than focussing on how wrong the other folks are?
[Reply]