Below, Edward Einhorn responds to the question:
The boundaries of science are continually expanding as scientists become increasingly integral to finding solutions for larger social issues, such as poverty, conflict, financial crises, etc. On what specific issue/problem do you feel we need to bring the scientific lens to bear?
As someone who works in the arts, I am going to examine this in a way I think is both narrow, in that it will deal directly with my field, and broad, in that I feel that the arts are often a forerunner in times of social change.
The specific application I have in mind is on the issue of arts funding. I have been struck many times by the attitude in American society towards the arts as a sort of social leech, sucking underserved money from the unwilling government (or what little funding the arts gets, that is). The recent stimulus package, which miraculously gave a pittance ($50 million) to the arts, was an example: Consistently, that $50 million was referred to more than almost any other single element of the $700 billion bill as wasteful spending.
Living in New York City, as I do, I am acutely aware of the economic and sociological impact that the arts have. And the arts community has been working harder to make the public aware of that impact, but of course lack of funding makes that, ironically, all the harder. So I have been puzzling about ways to make that effect clear and demonstrable.
One interesting study would be to analyze the development of a neighborhood once the artists move in. More than once I have seen a neighborhood transform, thanks in good part to artists who do not have the money to live elsewhere but are able to use their creativity to find a way to start reviving the neighborhood piece by piece. What usually happens is that the neighborhood develops (as say, Soho did) into an area so popular that most of the artists are then forced to move out. But these experiences are anecdotal more than codified. What do the artists (and their art) do specifically? Are there patterns? What would happen if cities deliberately developed artists' housing in certain neighborhoods--would those neighborhoods improve each time, or are there other elements that have to be in play? What if cities funded theaters or art galleries in these neighborhoods, how would that change the dynamics?
In a time when Congress is searching for shovel-ready projects, perhaps an artists' collective, or a play, or an art exhibition is the most shovel-ready of all.
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Mr Einhorn, in this time of recession, art provides comfort. Sojournposse, the art collective I co-founded, began as a creative platform for like-minded friends, who wanted to express their artistic selves outside the confine of their professions.
Recession happened. And some of the people in the collective lost their jobs.
Our art keeps us going. A lesson has been learned: Our contents do not pander to sponsors and advertisers - if it were a business model, it would have collapsed by now. But because it's a movement, the collective lives. As an art movement, we are not touched by financial 'cutbacks'. There is nothing to cut back.
And recently, we've been asked to participate in London Design Week - by an engineering company. An engineering company gets us. That's a start. I cannot describe how that boosts the morale of the collective.
Art does wonders not only to a physical landscape; it keeps the human group together in spirit. Our feelings need to be heard, and art gives our feelings a voice. I'm sure Greg Laden the anthropologist can explain the concept of 'accessory goals' better than I do.
When the economy bounces back, some of us will return to what we were before: designers, bankers, lawyers, DoPs, journalists. But we know now what truly counts.
Posted by: Sojournposse | August 15, 2009 6:02 PM
I think although art of all forms and manifestations act as great refuges in times of social crises, they do not by no means substitute the essential questions that science seeks to answer in order to either eliminate or reduce the effects of larger social issues facing us today. Art and artists can be the reflective mirrors of the social troubles, raising awareness, shifting older paradigms of perception. However, the arts alone can by no means solve the fundamental conflicts. I believe that intensional science (both practical and basic) hand in hand with technology can address what's missing in our world more efficiently.
Here's an interesting read on science and art, although I think the role of technology is downplayed. Enjoy: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_future_of_science_is_art/
Posted by: Noushin Nabavi | August 31, 2009 10:15 PM
I believe this cycle of neighborhood/economic improvement needs to be seized by the artists, so they are rewarded for their own work, passion and innovation (and not 2nd wave developers).
My challenge to artists, formulated in context of Richard Florida's work:
http://www.arthereandnow.com/2008/05/thank-you-richard-florida-for-giving-the-bohemians-so-much-power-now-please-tell-us-when-will-we-ever-benefit-from-it/
Posted by: Trout | September 12, 2009 10:17 PM