Art in Systemaism

It is a common belief that the concept of a system is seen by men as something soulless, a mechanism strictly abiding the rules, incapable of inspiration, such as the emanation of art. From the systaemaism point of view, this belief is wrong at the very basis. The search for the creative approach for the individual in order to solve an internal problem is one of the remarkable qualities of the system.
By saying “individual”, we imply an abstract object of the type “living being”, of which the abstractions “man”, “elephant”, “bird” and so on inherit that quality. This to say that all specific objects, be it your roommate or his dog, in different measure, both possess a creative streak.

1. Art

In this part we shall ask ourselves what does the creation of aesthetic objects do, which makes it a function on the system.
To answer this question one must ask himself two questions. The first of which is what is art and the second is what is its role.
There’s great importance in separating the two issues, since the word “role” often makes one think about practical implementation, while some people might state that the art has little of such use.
But first, let us discuss what art is. The discussion over this issue lasts centuries, as some forms of presentation being criticized and others being publicly accepted. The best examples this writer can currently think of is the criticism of Wagner of the Jewish music in his writings, claiming that the writers are incapable of “any sort of artistic utterance”. An opposite example is the “Duchamp”, a latrine held as a publicly accepted expression of the DADA art (Tomkins, 1996). The two cases serve as a proof of attempts to define artistic expressions into a frame of certain society, but they are often judged by others as “bad art” or “not art”.
Almost as if to resolve those conflicting definition, but much before their time, Leo Tolstoy (1960) has defined art as an expression of beauty that is found acceptable by the society. The higher the size of the society that considers the art “good”, the more probable the accepting of the art piece as “art”. For such an example, nowadays, many people find Bach’s musical pieces “good” and believe him a composer and an artist of music, while the “Black square” by Malevich (1913) raises eyebrow more often than not. This is another case of majority acceptance as a social function, when one can say that his “art” is “good” because the majority that accepted it is so big that there simply isn’t a wider class or society that will deem it unfit for human interest.
The system itself is “indifferent” to the emanation of mass interest for one artist or the other. If, suddenly, Bach’s music and its fans will cease to exist, the system won’t collapse, but it will undergo some changes. Basically, following the idea of Systemaism, the art is the highest emanation of the most basic needs.

For example, the art can be also defined as a higher form of the game, a learning function practiced by animals. The learning through game is used to passing information to receptive minds, not necessarily younger, as a smaller version of activity or emotion it might experience in the future. This way, kittens hunt their mother’s tail and fight each other, in preparation to hunting food and fighting for territory when they grow up, as part of their survival. In similar way to those survival skills, art also develops from game (Konstantinovsky, 1978).
In this case, a toddler painting the wall with crayon sees his actions as a game, but also learn to express his needs through those crayons (although in this case, probably, he first of all get his parent’s attention and not in a way he seeks). Later, the same toddler will grow up and learn more complex methods of communication, and also might gain artistic education, to pass his emotions through more complex expressive means, such as a portrait of a beloved to show his affection or a caricature to pass his annoyance. Same way we inherit the tendency for decoration from more primitive classes, such as the bird, which decorates its nest to make it appealing for the female it court, and take the decoration to a higher form, which is more free from its practical use and is created for the simple purpose of being.
But let us not be fooled by the seeming lack of use, for just as everything else, even in its purest form the art is far from “useless”.
This brings us to the other issue regarding art and it’s the functionality of it in the system. In this aspect, we must separate the art from the artisanship, which is the masterful making of things. The artisanship places the functionality of the object at the base of its existence while the artist’s work is meant to be unique and of more emotional effect. From this definition, one might ask himself how art can be deemed “useful” in a system, when it’s meant to be unrepeated and not truly functional. There are two ways to answer this question, one of which is challenging the definition itself.
In defining art as separate from artisanship, those definitions might not be as separate as one might think, as the artisan can also be an artist. The example of such things is a beautifully crafted chair, with decorative carvings, which is still functional as a chair and was created to be sited upon, but is also a unique and pleasing to the eye as an object of art and the society into which it is bought will look at it and consider it a “good” thing, both practically and artistically. Also, the repeated function which also serves to define artisan work can be given to art too, as a set of fine cutlery, which has 6 forks and 6 knives, can be a work of art of itself, created in a repeated function but remarkable and unique in its design and its function of assisting in eating becomes second to its beauty. (Encyclopedia of Irish and world art)
Through this challenging it becomes clear that the capacity of creating unique items isn’t given by those chosen from above, but is present in all, although in different measure. Still, the decisive part in this will be played by hard work on developing those skills. In simpler words, if you don’t give your kid a crayon, he won’t paint the wall, but he also won’t learn to draw and won’t become a painter, no matter how strong his artistic streak is.

Also, the art can serve a function of its own. Those functions can be limitless. Art can serve as a method of spiritual enrichment (Storey, 2008), a method of contact among different cultures, religious advertising( such as the great Roman temples) the passing of information (images of significant events), a trade to make a living upon (such was the case of Vermeer, for example), or a method of self expression. To the later we’ll address in a separate chapter. For example, consider a complex graffiti on a wall in New York. It has a stylistic name and an image of a rabid dog on it and is painted on a certain corner of a street. This graffiti can serve several purposes- stating that the artist was at a certain location, therefore being a historic recording, delivering a message of the artist’s emotions (a rabid dog, as opposed to a naked woman), a territory statement in a case where the artist uses a certain color combination and a form of social protest (because the building is certainly not a property of the artist to paint upon). So many purposes are delivered by a single image that the system can’t deem this art useless, although many won’t consider the graffiti a “good” art.

But as for the religious purposes, since the Systemaism is a religious concept, we shall take a moment here to discuss the interaction of art and religions, as both its’ place in the religions and the reflection of religions upon it.

Another important role of art is the communication. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words, and it’s not entirely untrue. A caricature can serve as a method to pass annoyance or to amplify the attention of the public to a certain event.
The function of the art can even go as far as a basis for social concordance (Lazlo), as people watch the same piece of art and find themselves agreeing on the feelings that it awakens in them. This is true not only to the “good art”, but art in general, as people can unite around disliking a form of art just as much as around admiration. An example of it is the Rhythmic American Poetry (RAP), the social agreeing is that its content is often jarring and sexually offensive, up to the point where studies are made to verify the impact of this music on sexism levels of the listeners (Cobb & Boettcher, 2007).
Art is also functional on the personal levels, where it can serve as an outlet to negative emotions, a method of therapy or diagnosis. For example, let us take the use of artistic divination cards, such as TAROT or “hats and shoes” in psychiatric therapy and diagnosis. According to A. (interview 2010), the same image painted on those cards can bring different associations, expose inner content and even open a person up to a group discussion. This is a common practice in certain hospitals as part of the therapeutic procedure, and it uses the art on those cards not in its “practical”, divination use, but as a key to mental processes, just for the images painted on the cards- the very art, without the “artisanship”.

From this we come to a conclusion that art, as a form of creativity, serves the system for many interpersonal reasons, often separated and often united with the artisanship behind it. And again we remind, that in this aspect, “we” implies not only the humans, but also all living organisms, capable of making their own situation based decisions. By the conception of Systaemaism, we all show artistic approach, but in different areas and situations.


2. Originality and creativity

When addressing creativity, we don’t speak of creation alone in the artistic aspect we’ve already discussed. One also thinks about the term “creative solution”, where a single situation can be resolved in several means, not all socially accepted or even possible for the average minds. For example, the use of a can opener is the common solution for making the insides of a tin can available for use. However, whereas the can isn’t available, the more creative, but not socially acceptable way was using a dull knife, a hammer and a wrench and if one is desperate enough- a rock. All those were a way of opening a tin can until in 1962, Mikola Kondakow (Canadian patent 476789) came up with the pull-tab, a ring which allows to open the can without any tools. A new, creative solution, added to the socially unpopular alternatives and the common choice of a tool. All serve the same purpose in the system- providing one with the food inside the can.
Creativity isn’t typical to humans alone. In nature, monkeys, dogs, birds, even squids are known to apply tools to get their needs met, such as sticks and stones, serving the same system in often original ways.
But when one thinks of the system, order is assumed, also added by a preset function. So how do those who are creative fit into the system?
The answer lies within the functionality of the system itself. There are many ways of achieving the same function, but the system strives not only to function but also to functionality. This also means using as little resources as possible in order to get to the same results. This means opening the can with a pull ring and making other similar shortcuts in order to save time in the process of achieving the same goal.

The gaining of functionality isn’t as simple as one might think. For example, in order to develop a functional medical drug, it takes about 7-10 years to isolate, test and synthesize the needed molecule, and over 500 millions of dollars, all for one single medicine (Ogbru, 2002). Also, for every successfully developed molecule, hundreds turn up as “dead ends” and only 3 out of 20 bring up enough revenue to cover for their own costs. However, once discovered, this one molecule can become a treatment for HIV, cancer, a new type of antibiotics. Therefore in order to have a functional medicine, a long creative process is required. Not only that, but the process itself serves a secondary function of providing work places for workers of various professions. Therefore, direct or delayed, creativity still serves a function in the system, even if it’s hard to see at short term look. This form of “delayed” or long term creativity still functioning within the system and gives us the efficiency of workplace, advanced research

But let us take a step back and look at the simpler forms of creativity, for being creative isn’t typical to humans alone. All living beings have the potential of being creative and some creativity is becoming inbred into the specie. For example, the naked mole has been using “face masks” made of wood splinters in order to reduce inhaling of dirt when digging, and otters use rocks to open oysters in order to get their next meal. This is not the immediate solution, for finding the wood chips and the rocks will take a momentary effort and time before they can be implied, however once attained, they serve their purpose Klein, 2008). The animals don’t have to learn those uses, rather they are born with it, but some more advanced species, such as the chimpanzee had been seen being more creative, learning at the early age the not-bred skills of washing fruits or using a walking stick.
But how far can this creativity go? It seems that the creativity is limited only by the tools available to the creative being. For example, the otter has rocks, water, its body and its intelligence. With those it developed the tool innovation of using rocks to open oysters. We, the humans, have a bigger variety of tools, some of which were developed using earlier tools. For example, we first developed magnifying glass and baking bread, and from those we got microscope and noticed penicillin in its natural, bread-mold state. Currently we have a much greater number of tools open for us, the greatest of which is our brain, with its storage and learning capacity, the sensor variety and the precise movements it maintains. Add in opposable thumbs in order to hold a tool and we end up with a great learning and research potential. Thus, we, as a higher class, inherit the learning traits of the mammals and develop some of our own, all in order to function more creatively towards a more efficiently functioning system. In a similar pattern, we gain the higher classes of tools and inventions thorough inheriting the lower classes.
To conclude this part, we can see that sometimes, creativity is necessary in order to give the system the efficiency it functions with, although that step beyond the seemingly strict line of the coding and order might seem out of place on the first, unsuspecting sight.


Sources:

A. (Personal communication, November 24, 2010). Discussion regarding divination cards in psychiatry.
Cobb, M. D. and Boettcher, W. A. (2007), Ambivalent Sexism and Misogynistic Rap Music: Does Exposure to Eminem Increase Sexism?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37: 3025–3042. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00292.x
Klein, B. (January 16, 2009). Clever Critters: 8 best non human tool users. Retrieved October 8, 2010, from: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/animaltools/
Konstantinovsky, M. (1978). Koapp (Russian). Isskusstvo: USSR.
Malevitch, K. (1913). Black square [Painting]. State Russian museum, St.Petersburg.
Moholy-Nagy, L. (1947). The function of art in Albers and Moholy-Nagy Vision in motion. Chicago, IL.
Ogbru, O. (2002). Why drugs cost so much? Medecinet. Com. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18892
Storey, R. (2008). Art and religion: co-evolved phenomena. Style. Retrieved October 10, 2010 from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_2-3_42/ai_n31591117/
Tolstoy, L. N. (1960).What is Art? Translated by Almyer Maude. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Tomkins, C. (1996). Duchamp: a biography. Henry Holt & Company, USA.
Wagner, R. (1894). Judaism in music. The Theatre, 3, 79-100.
Canadian patent 476789