I’ve spent a bit of time this summer in a Europe, mostly in Eastern Germany (in Dresden for a conference), and Austria (in Vienna to visit a collaborator)
Few things came to mind:
1) Is there a limit on scientific progress and what does art history teach us about it?
We were taken on a tour of some contemporary art galleries in Dresden as part of a conference off-day. It was thought-provoking and frankly disturbing. The first gallery we visited was hosted by an artist whose modus operandi was the following: take two pictures taken with your smartphone on your travels and splice them on photoshop; smoke huge amount in front of your computer screen; take a photo of said computer screen with the spliced image; print it and call it art.
I had a strong urge to tell the guy,” why don’t you fucking fap on your screen and also print that out you sorry piece of shit”. But then I also realized that his conundrum may have some disturbing parallels to modern science and this made me uneasy. How many times have we felt like we were doing mostly derivative things as scientists? How many times have we taken a photo of a photo (like all the times you do something new only to discover a large chunk of it has been done before?) As the guy gleefully pointed out his liking for smoking my mind felt more at ease characterizing him as a weak loser (I also realize this is unfortunately a little like the self-hating closeted homosexual who works harder to denounce homosexuality; to be sure, I imagine I would like to smoke but I have refrained from it for very long now).
So why is this what we call contemporary art now? In the early 1800s, we were still dominated by intricate classical, baroque, ornately encased paintings. But then Impressionism came and led by Monet, Renoir and co we enjoyed more in reality being presented to us in a series of impressions, like foggy memories, in somber colors. This gave way then to the likes of Van Gogh and Cezanne who wanted to be a bit bolder, color reality with more intense colors, with more dream-like caricatures or realistic moments, or we had Seurat with pointillistic impressions. The transition was complete when expressionism was born with the works of Matisse and Kirchner and others. Cubism ala Picasso, Objectivism, followed and we eventually gave up on reality completely with the Dadist and Surreal movements. If you will, you can add Pop art ala Warhol and “art” ala Pollock to this. This entire explosion of amazing ideas and magnificent progress occurred between 1850 and 1950, about a century, and this is most likely an overestimate. It is hard to say what is notable in the world of walled art anymore. Why has there been this hiatus? Are there limits to our imagination, and to art, and to science?
One could say the art media have changed and this has given us new directions to pursue and maybe there are new art movements only possible in these new art forms. Cold atoms and ion traps anyone? I suppose this must be true. But why are there no big showcasing computer graphic arts? Do we somehow view these as necessarily substandard to brush and canvas art? Is there some objective truth in this? Why does this art not appeal to us as common members of the public? Is modern art (the painting kind) so detached from our senses that to appreciate them we need to be immersed in the historicity of art? In other words, is the appeal for it have nothing intrinsic, just a collection of myths humans have constructed that now girder this new movement? Would it mean nothing to people who saw it 10,000 years from now?
Is science headed this way too? I have more faith in science and the resourcefulness and appeal of what we do, but I find similarities in the trajectories of these human endeavors worth exploring.
2) has Europe become a zoo?
When you're in one of these more touristy European cities, such as Vienna, it almost feels like an entire economy is running almost exclusively on tourism, which of course can't be healthy. But besides this, there's this weird sensation when you see people taking photographs of almost anything and everything that is remotely of interest, that you're in a zoo of some sort.
A number of people can be spotted at any moment, in almost any part of town, conforming themselves in the trendy pose of the day, with selfie sticks or without. It's a disease of some sort. A lady I saw the other day while I was chilling in a cafe, took a photograph of herself with the signage fo the cafe, a dozen photographs documenting the ambiance at the entrance to the cafe, a photograph of the menu, one of the "cafe of the year 2015" sort of awards, one of the door knob (I think), and... I understand the need for people to document; I think it's driven by existential fears, we try and document ourselves to make ourselves eternal. But then I laughed at myself for that rubbish analysis. This lady isn't trying to make herself eternal. She's probably just trying to make her girlfriends back home jealous of her amazing Euro tour.
And there are those photographers who distinguish themselves by being more subtle in their vainglorious attempts to document their travels. They pretend to do ethno-anthropological study (why?) by photographing people in their hometowns, striving to capture them in their natural habitat, or cityscapes and the general "mood". I cannot say that I am entirely removed from these urges, but I recognize them for what they are, and try my best to not do this. I certainly do not attempt to photograph individuals or groups of individuals because that is quite frankly a disturbing thing to do.
Is travel passé? It's a question of how people choose to illustrate wealth. In the olden times, it was by owning a set of ornate objects. That became commonplace enough due to the rise of mass manufacturing centers, and modernism took its place instead. The wealth-signaling of our times is travel. In the last 5 years, the trend has been, in order, Santorini, Croatia, Iceland, and now Rome again. Airline prices work accordingly. These are like mass movements orchastrated by instagram, facebook, hype and the industry also cooperates to make it happen. Soon with overcrowded centers of tourism, travel would be passé. And what will take it's place? I'm going to bet on sports that are not easily accessible. There's of course a tradition of this. Golf is still a rich man's sport. As is skiing. And some else. Maybe I'm thinking too small. Is travel to the Moon going to be commonplace enough to be the next big wealth-signaling thing? Who knows. We'll find something.
3) Racism is still, I think, a thing.
I try very hard to not assume racist intent. Whether these are examples of racism, I don't know.
In Germany, I went on a train from the airport 3 times. In those 3 rides, I sat in a small compartment capable of accommodating about 15 people, and it was usually about 60% full. 2 times, the ticket checker only checked my ticket, and not of any other (white) person. Do these checkers know the others to be regular travelers? Well, it felt odd anyway.
In Austria, while boarding a local bus, I was informed the bus would re-start (on the course back) in about 20 minutes. I asked the driver if I could sit in the bus to wait because I did not want to miss it by chance. As I entered the bus, he signaled to me saying I could not enter from the front of the bus, and I should go to the back and sit there somewhere. Perhaps he was worried I would drive away his bus while he stood outside for his smoke break? Maybe that's a legitimate concern. But then I saw many, presumably local Austrian people, sitting right at the front of the bus. Perhaps there was some miscommunication? I don't know.
The above are dubious examples of profiling and racism. But you do get a sense in Europe that you're more or less a second-class person. The more troubling thing I always find is how prevalent such ideas are among even the educated people. I would say Germans are typically much more well-traveled and well-spoken and have the weight of history teaching them to not fall into old patterns. But in Austria, on the lunch table, I heard a person comment, "in Canada, it's the natives who are lining up the streets begging, homeless, addicted to drugs". Does this person think Canada is not doing enough to protect its native population? That of course, is true, and Canada could do more. But is this person instead trying to make some kind of racialized point? And the reason to worry about the latter is because from my own experience, there's absolutely nothing racial about the homeless people on the streets of Canadian cities. In fact, most appear to be struggling with drug dependencies and are usually white (not that it should matter who is suffering, but that there are people suffering and something must be done about it). The pattern becomes clearer when I learn that often people go to town and look at homeless Turkish people on the streets and say "but look the government is doing everything for them, and they are yet failing".
This is how myths spread, foster, and its a vicious cycle. It's how the US population convinced itself that blacks were inferior, systemic casteism destroyed lives of humans for millennia in the Indian subcontinent. If tomorrow a person from Sudan fled from their home due to economic hardship or political persecution, and landed in Austria with no knowledge of German, a pay-cheque from the government to make basic ends meet would not do much good. No ordinary employer would take them for the reason they do not know German. And even if they did end up learning some German, a stereotype of their racial, religious, national or any other distinguishing feature could be used by a prospective employer to offer the position to a local of roughly similar qualifications. And then people would see them on the streets and think to themselves "these people are useless". It's really something that's hard to escape from. It's about fundamentals, and recognizing the cyclical nature of the beast. If you are not encouraged as a society, to develop compassion for people who are not in the same position as the mean, you are bound to develop false myths (stereotypes). And human myths are the most dangerous kinds of myths. They can justify slavery, manual scavenging, female infanticide, genital mutilations, and who knows what else.
I just feel in my bones that Europe as a society that has not learned this lesson. 10 years ago when I visited Dresden, I was chased through the main streets of Dresden by Neo-Nazis hurling insults at me and a friend. I walked past every day on a path overlooking a few balconies. On some days, there would be too little girls there who would monkey chat at me and my friend. Is Europe different today? I don't know.
When you're in one of these more touristy European cities, such as Vienna, it almost feels like an entire economy is running almost exclusively on tourism, which of course can't be healthy. But besides this, there's this weird sensation when you see people taking photographs of almost anything and everything that is remotely of interest, that you're in a zoo of some sort.
A number of people can be spotted at any moment, in almost any part of town, conforming themselves in the trendy pose of the day, with selfie sticks or without. It's a disease of some sort. A lady I saw the other day while I was chilling in a cafe, took a photograph of herself with the signage fo the cafe, a dozen photographs documenting the ambiance at the entrance to the cafe, a photograph of the menu, one of the "cafe of the year 2015" sort of awards, one of the door knob (I think), and... I understand the need for people to document; I think it's driven by existential fears, we try and document ourselves to make ourselves eternal. But then I laughed at myself for that rubbish analysis. This lady isn't trying to make herself eternal. She's probably just trying to make her girlfriends back home jealous of her amazing Euro tour.
And there are those photographers who distinguish themselves by being more subtle in their vainglorious attempts to document their travels. They pretend to do ethno-anthropological study (why?) by photographing people in their hometowns, striving to capture them in their natural habitat, or cityscapes and the general "mood". I cannot say that I am entirely removed from these urges, but I recognize them for what they are, and try my best to not do this. I certainly do not attempt to photograph individuals or groups of individuals because that is quite frankly a disturbing thing to do.
Is travel passé? It's a question of how people choose to illustrate wealth. In the olden times, it was by owning a set of ornate objects. That became commonplace enough due to the rise of mass manufacturing centers, and modernism took its place instead. The wealth-signaling of our times is travel. In the last 5 years, the trend has been, in order, Santorini, Croatia, Iceland, and now Rome again. Airline prices work accordingly. These are like mass movements orchastrated by instagram, facebook, hype and the industry also cooperates to make it happen. Soon with overcrowded centers of tourism, travel would be passé. And what will take it's place? I'm going to bet on sports that are not easily accessible. There's of course a tradition of this. Golf is still a rich man's sport. As is skiing. And some else. Maybe I'm thinking too small. Is travel to the Moon going to be commonplace enough to be the next big wealth-signaling thing? Who knows. We'll find something.
3) Racism is still, I think, a thing.
I try very hard to not assume racist intent. Whether these are examples of racism, I don't know.
In Germany, I went on a train from the airport 3 times. In those 3 rides, I sat in a small compartment capable of accommodating about 15 people, and it was usually about 60% full. 2 times, the ticket checker only checked my ticket, and not of any other (white) person. Do these checkers know the others to be regular travelers? Well, it felt odd anyway.
In Austria, while boarding a local bus, I was informed the bus would re-start (on the course back) in about 20 minutes. I asked the driver if I could sit in the bus to wait because I did not want to miss it by chance. As I entered the bus, he signaled to me saying I could not enter from the front of the bus, and I should go to the back and sit there somewhere. Perhaps he was worried I would drive away his bus while he stood outside for his smoke break? Maybe that's a legitimate concern. But then I saw many, presumably local Austrian people, sitting right at the front of the bus. Perhaps there was some miscommunication? I don't know.
The above are dubious examples of profiling and racism. But you do get a sense in Europe that you're more or less a second-class person. The more troubling thing I always find is how prevalent such ideas are among even the educated people. I would say Germans are typically much more well-traveled and well-spoken and have the weight of history teaching them to not fall into old patterns. But in Austria, on the lunch table, I heard a person comment, "in Canada, it's the natives who are lining up the streets begging, homeless, addicted to drugs". Does this person think Canada is not doing enough to protect its native population? That of course, is true, and Canada could do more. But is this person instead trying to make some kind of racialized point? And the reason to worry about the latter is because from my own experience, there's absolutely nothing racial about the homeless people on the streets of Canadian cities. In fact, most appear to be struggling with drug dependencies and are usually white (not that it should matter who is suffering, but that there are people suffering and something must be done about it). The pattern becomes clearer when I learn that often people go to town and look at homeless Turkish people on the streets and say "but look the government is doing everything for them, and they are yet failing".
This is how myths spread, foster, and its a vicious cycle. It's how the US population convinced itself that blacks were inferior, systemic casteism destroyed lives of humans for millennia in the Indian subcontinent. If tomorrow a person from Sudan fled from their home due to economic hardship or political persecution, and landed in Austria with no knowledge of German, a pay-cheque from the government to make basic ends meet would not do much good. No ordinary employer would take them for the reason they do not know German. And even if they did end up learning some German, a stereotype of their racial, religious, national or any other distinguishing feature could be used by a prospective employer to offer the position to a local of roughly similar qualifications. And then people would see them on the streets and think to themselves "these people are useless". It's really something that's hard to escape from. It's about fundamentals, and recognizing the cyclical nature of the beast. If you are not encouraged as a society, to develop compassion for people who are not in the same position as the mean, you are bound to develop false myths (stereotypes). And human myths are the most dangerous kinds of myths. They can justify slavery, manual scavenging, female infanticide, genital mutilations, and who knows what else.
I just feel in my bones that Europe as a society that has not learned this lesson. 10 years ago when I visited Dresden, I was chased through the main streets of Dresden by Neo-Nazis hurling insults at me and a friend. I walked past every day on a path overlooking a few balconies. On some days, there would be too little girls there who would monkey chat at me and my friend. Is Europe different today? I don't know.
No comments:
Post a Comment