Everyone
can have some say in how their society is run. Why? Not because of some
idealistic natural right which we can never demonstrate to be
absolutely true. Not because of divine commands from supernatural
forces. No, I believe people can have a say because they have earned
that say by living and experiencing their society. From this basic
starting point, the more power that then flows into the hands of people,
the more they need to have access to knowledge, and the stronger
they must become to keep up with the increasing demands of power. This
is the only fair way to ensure that a society works in the interests of
those who make it up.
For instance, When a community is considering the placement of an aqueduct, the people whose lives it is effecting must be consulted. Even if they do not have the expertise to build one, it is going to effect their lives in a way that is essential, providing them with enough water to survive. Who could possibly know ones needs more than oneself?
In matters of art, on the other hand, no one has a say in how I create. No one is *I*. There is no possible way in which anyone can earn a say in my creativity. Art has no such essential function. If the people wish to be entertained (which you could say is of equal importance to food, water, shelter and so on) then there will always be mediocre entertainment available to allow them to function. Michael Franti once said television is the place: 'Where imagination is sucked out of children, through a cathode-ray nipple. TV, is the only wet nurse, that would create a cripple.' There is a clear distinction between art made for its own sake, and entertainment made to placate a warped image of the 'masses'. This I believe to be the difference between art made by 'vote', and art made by some deeper principle.
It is certainly not for the artist to alter themselves by consulting such a democracy, nor creating things for the purpose of satiating peoples basic needs, as opposed to exploring themselves and the universe in their 'transcendent and/or spiritual' quest. Not only should the artist be ignorant of what people want when creating something, they should also be ignorant of the audiences reaction to their creation.
Democratic organisation of societies, which provides essential needs, cannot be guided by a tyrant. Art, as a voluntary activity, can be guided by a tyrant. Indeed, every hollywood film ever made was an anti-democratic process in its creation. Or at least, it should have been. What is created in the mainstream world of 'art', however, is often determined by the audience, not by the artist. When the audience decides what is being created you have an utterly absurd situation: 'I wish to see a theatre play with at least three assassination attempts, two acts of infidelity and one major battle scene'. The artists then give people what they want, based on what the majority of people will go for. If you want to see such a (mediocre!) play, why not create it in your head? Surely the whole point of art is that it is someone else's creation, and it is something surprising, which will broaden ones mind. You have had no say in its creation and that is the joy of it.
Likewise with philosophy. Just as the artist is creating things from a 'spiritual' domain within themselves, that can only be accessed by themselves, the philosopher is looking to find reasons for their thoughts that go beyond tradition, ritual or mass beliefs. If fifty-one percent of people say two and two makes five, do we then agree that it does? If fifty-one percent of people say that every third child must be sacrificed to the hungry gods of the sea, do we then obey such a barbaric practice?
The eternal search for questions and answers posed by philosophers are not determined by crowds, only shared with them, checked by them. Even if we are trying to build a system of morality out of love for the greater masses, it must ultimately be grounded in reasons and experiences which 'transcend' a show of hands - for if we base our decisions on popularity alone, what would happen if one day a majority turned upon a minority; who could say it was an unfair decision?
Now
some might accuse this author of being elitist: 'If art and philosophy
are beyond democracy, then why not leave power and organisation up to
experts - why not get rid of democracy altogether?' There is no
equivalent in the world of politics to the artist or the philosopher.
There is no one in the world of politics pushing the boundaries of human
endeavour with their unique and personal brilliance. The only goal of
democracy should be to provide the framework within which all people
can meet their basic needs and then pursue their own goals after this.
Democracy must have its limits if this is the case.
Here are some questions raised by this article:
i)
Is there is really such a big difference between art and entertainment?
Can one really be placed so highly over the other and is there no
middle ground between the two?
ii)
Is art really the result of an internal process or is the best art
produced in a more communal way? Is this emphasis on the individual
creating art removing them from the world (and the opinions of other
people) too much, giving them supernatural status?
iii)
If the only goal of political power is to provide the basics of living,
with every other project left for individuals to pursue on their own
merits, will society cease to exist as we know it? And what are these
basic needs we all have, how can we come to define them in a universal
way?
Selim 'Selim' Talat
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Democracy' Issue 41