The Grand Illusion
In response to one comment on a recent blog, I noted that vocal music had changed over the last forty years, and another commenter made the point that languages evolve… both of which raised in my mind the question of the role art plays in societal evolution. Put bluntly, does art lead such transformations, or does it merely reflect them? Or is it the usual mix of a little leading, and a great deal of reflection?
While I’m no art historian, it does appear to me that changes in the predominant or critically acclaimed styles of painting do not follow a pattern of gradual change, but occur irregularly, and at times, at least, preceded significant societal changes, as in the case of the rise of the impressionists, or the modern art movement of the 1950s. Such changes also do not appear to be primarily gradualistic.
Music historians have placed classical music into periods, but how does one analyze the changes from one period to the next? Were giants such as Bach and Mozart so dominant in their mastery that they forced the composers who followed them to innovate? Beethoven’s great Ninth Symphony, which is unlike any other of its time and, for that matter, unlike any of quality any time soon thereafter, was composed at a time when the “old order” had been restored. Was he reacting to the currents of past revolution, or anticipating the changes to come? It’s easy enough to say that such questions were irrelevant to Beethoven, except that it’s unlikely that any creative soul is impervious to the environment, especially in Beethoven’s case, since the currents of politics swirled around Vienna during the period, especially after 1800, when his most daring works were composed.
Popular music, especially in the United States, underwent radical changes in the 1960s, and significant societal changes also occurred. Did they occur in tandem, or did the music reinforce the impetus for change? Can anyone truly say?
Science fiction aficionados often like to claim that SF leads the way into the future, but does it? Isaac Asimov did foresee the pocket calculator, but the success record of the genre is pretty weak, either in predicting or inspiring social and technological changes. Almost 40 years ago, in my very first story, I predicted computer analysis and economic modeling, somewhat accurately, as it turned out, and cybercrime as well, and while cybercrime has indeed become a feature of current society, I never predicted the most predominant type. I did predict institutional cybercrime of the general type that caused the last economic meltdown, and, so far as I can tell, that story was one of the first, if not the first, to suggest that type of crime, but… somehow… I don’t think my little story inspired it. I just saw where technology and trends might lead.
But, of course, that leaves open the question… how much do the arts influence the future?
What is Art? Is it not how humans show others how they view the world and how humans should live in said world? Is a society not a form of Art developed by a few? Do not all human economic models through out history accumulate great amounts of Art in cities and use it as leverage/supply and demand to create more? What would happen for those who cannot afford art? Would they have to develop their own? What would occur if they wanted to keep their new Art to themselves? Would they be allowed to? And when Art cannot be kept through the power of steel, would it develop as a weapon towards the old? What is the underlying premise of a democracy in which the founding principle is separation of religion and state?
How much do arts influence the future? If one accepts that Art is human and humans compete–then I would say Art is future, future is Art. The two are the same.
I’ve seen interviews in the past with employees of NASA who’ve said they were inspired to become scientists by Star Trek and it’s optimistic depiction of the future.
The Star Trek the Next Generation episode Darmok raised my understanding of how we communicate. It’s funny the first time I saw that episode as a child I found it incredibly boring. I saw it again a couple of years ago and enjoyed how much it made me think. One scene references Romeo and Juliet. I’ve never read the original play but I know the story and it part of our collective consciousness and influences how we communicate.
On some basic level I think of all art forms as being tools for communication. Some communicate ideas others emotions and some a mixture of both. Experimentation and innovation with art isn’t always for the better but on some level it’s about seeking a more effective way of communicating.
Not to say that art, specifically writing and fiction, is predictive of the future, but it does seem interesting to note an increasing trend in writing the is post-apocalyptic setting.
Post-apocalyptic zombie stories, Nuclear Holocaust, financial meltdown, and other such fun concepts where the world as we know it is pretty much a pockmark of the universe.
Fiction, science fiction or otherwise, may not predict the future, but it definitely reflects our expectations of the future.