Stephen Hicks, Ph.D.

Talgam and Zander on leadership and music

Two talks at TED on music, leadership, and passion. In my next life, I think I want to be a musician.

Itay Talgam:

Benjamin Zander:

Coexist or Uncoexist?

A vigorous culture carries on its debates at many levels and via many media, all the way down to the bumper sticker. I enjoy the cleverness that goes into many stickers, as well as the ongoing one-upmanship.

These “Coexist” stickers have been around for awhile now:

Islam, peace, men/women, Judaism, paganism, Taoism/Confucianism, Christianity — can’t we all just get along?

In a gesture of inclusiveness, this version substitutes Hinduism.
.
.
.

This spelling-challenged version adds science to the mix, thinks it’s important to distinguish the pagans and the wiccans, and seems confused about Buddhism — but is trying very hard not to leave anyone out.

The Coexisters are focused on religion, asking us to attend to the shared themes of many religions — spirituality, love, peace. Their goal is to achieve tolerance by abstracting away from the differences among religions.

But then along comes the Uncoexist response to rain on the parade:

Let’s not forget about the Communists, the theocrats, the Satanists, the pederasts, the Nazis, and the Klan.

Uncoexisters are focused on evil and politics, reminding us that there are evil people in the world and that many of them use politics to harm and control others. Their goal is to protect the free and the innocent from the evil.

According to the Uncoexisters, the Coexisters think: If only we could give Ahmadinejad a big hug, tell him how much we love him, and share a nice cup of chamomile tea, the world would be a better place. What a bunch of pansies.

According to the Coexisters, the Uncoexisters think: If only we could bomb the bastards into the Stone Age, the world would be a better place. What a bunch of troglodytes.

All of this is good at the level of bumper-sticker debate, and it is fascinating how graphic design can concretize and compress so much.

Assignment to the Coexister graphic designers, in keeping with the theme of inclusiveness: Can we please work in Sikh and Shinto?

And an assignment to the Uncoexister graphic designers, in keeping with the theme of lessons in danger: Can we work in Kim Jong-il and Caligula? (And that big E just sitting there is really bothering me.)

Is capitalism bad for art?

I will be giving a talk with that title at California State University, East Bay, on October 14. Thanks to Professor Stephen Schmanske and the Smith Center for inviting me.

My theme will be the relationship between art and liberal cultures, focusing on economically free cultures especially.

One part of my talk will discuss how economic liberalism is empowering for artists both materially and psychologically, and part of my evidence for that will be historical: Why were the greatest of the great eras in art history classical Athens, Renaissance Florence and Venice, the Dutch Golden Age, Paris in the late nineteenth century. Why not, say, Sparta in the 5th century BCE? Or Milan in the 15th century? Or Denmark in the 17th? Or Portugal in the 19th?

Another part of my talk will take up the perplexing question of why, since the late 19th century, so many artists have taken anti-business and anti-capitalist stances. Pablo Picasso is representative here, having said, famously, “The merchant — there’s the enemy.” A fascinating set of adversarial (and self-destructive) issues there.

The lecture is based on my current book project, The Fate of Art under Capitalism, which I discussed in an earlier post.

Architecture and politics

How structures concretize a political system’s core social dynamic:

.

Feudalism: Build walls to keep the enemy out.
Examples: the medieval castle, the Great Wall of China.
.
.
.
.

.
.
Socialism: Build walls to keep your people in.
Examples: the Berlin Wall, the Koreas’ DMZ.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
Capitalism: Create glass wall storefronts to attract other people.
Example: the shopping mall.
.
.
.
.

So here’s a question: Is the above a cheap shot or an essential truth?

Artists, Capitalists, and the Fate of Art under Capitalism

My current book project is The Fate of Art under Capitalism. The research is done and I’m over halfway done with the writing. I love art, art and intellectually history, and political economy—and this book project lets me integrate them all.

One of the questions I take up is based on three observations:

1. Artists have never had it so good as over the last century—the number of practicing artists has skyrocketed, as has the amount of money we spend on art, as has the number of media and genres, as has the quantity and quality of artistic raw materials, and so on.

2. The last century has been relatively capitalism-and-business friendly. (I know what you’re thinking, free market friends of mine.)

3. Most artists, especially those in the artistic establishment, are anti-capitalist and anti-business. (Picasso is representative, in word if not always in deed, here in 1918 speaking of his dealer Léonce Rosenberg: “Le marchand—voilà l’enemmi” [“The dealer—there's the enemy”].)

So my question is: Why the dynamic of the cartoons below?

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

Thoughts?

(Kudos to Chris Vaughan for drawing the cartoons for me.)

“Post-Postmodern Art” reprinted

My four-page essay on “Post-Postmodern Art” was originally published in The Newberry Manifesto in 2001.

It is also available in a re-print edition with images of the relevant works [pdf].

“Post-postmodern Art” published

Post-Postmodern Art

Originally published in The Newberry Manifesto, 2001.

Also available with images of the relevant works [pdf].

.
.
.