The_inverse_relationship_of_art_and_research.cda

Not allowing artists to become researchers, and not allowing researchers to become artists is a type of discrimination.

A lot of academics state that art practices and research aren't aiming the same direction. It's the same as an operative becoming a QA. This is because the objective of an operative is to send as many as possible to meet the target, whereas QA is to select the best quality of items to ensure quality specs are met. These are inversely related. 

As an artist, I have a lot of controversial views that conventional society is shocked by, because it is seen as attacking conventional society, and this may impact my trajectory of ever becoming an academic or researcher. (We’re forgetting how social progression takes place, and the many people revered today for making positive changes, were once spat on by their contemporaries at the time). I think I was well liked once, but that was because I was in the middle of the road, played dumb and stayed in my place. 

Evil as told by the media.mp3

I think that’s why I thought I was evil, because I was aware I have my own thoughts. The thoughts that undermine society- but I didn’t realise that I was conditioned to think that having own thoughts that challenge society is portrayed as evil (thanks Disney). Convention now, is self censorship - if you say the wrong thing, you’re fired. I like BBC and watch it frequently, but sometimes I think the institution is trying too hard. I’m only vaguely guessing and speculating, but I want to see research on that is direct, and not dancing around the subject. (But no one wants to because of fear)

When I research, I see it as a role - I try to answer research enquiries to the best of my ability, regardless of what my views are. I think it researching and observing, needs to be separated from politics; be like that star child from the end of 2001: Space Odyssey - but that’s my hot take. (The term, ‘hot take’ is trending at the moment. Many people snub hot take as proper research. It might be the case in STEM, but in arts and humanities, hot take as a form of research is valid - because it reveals the author’s opinions and maybe even institutionalised ones from the bigger society. This is connected to the socio-political commentary of society. 

To be an artist/thinker/philosopher.mp3

When I was younger, I thought there was an external structure to allow people to become artists, thinkers and philosophers (like a proper job title or something), and this made me believe that one can be called these things the moment of graduation. It’s not true. Humanities courses are designed for you to absorb the cultural capital and embody it to help culture. Not a ‘you go there to get a certificate to say that you are one and get a job’. That’s the mindset of people today. To actually be one, you have to actively do this thing without the title or recognition. The legitimate people you envy are the few who has ‘social proof’ (they were ‘lucky’ to have followers who are ‘living through’ them doing this thing that a lot of people who are also doing the same thing- who just don’t have social proof.) A lot of people place the value of this thing on social proof. 

Fuck social proof.mp3

So to be a thinker/philosopher today, it doesn’t matter how bad you think your thinking processes are, you just do, and become better with practice. The hurdles are: being seen and thinking you are’t good.

What’s fucked up about legitimacy.mp3

A lot of people develop a fucked up mindset of getting legitimacy that would lead to social proof for that thing they do. Isn’t this what Plato was warning us about in the symposium, about tricking people to loving you. (But this fucked up mindset is warped by inequality, and this thing with/or without legitimacy is a privileged activity. Using time as distance, historically, the privileged classes were the only ones able to think freely and have their ideas passed on to the future. Artists historically weren’t part of this, because their works were commissioned by people who paid them money to use their technical skills. Artists were vessels for the wealthy).

At least I find temporary solace in thinking that art and ideas by ordinary artists today is likely misunderstood, because there is no social proof herd behaviour led by the wealth(y). But It’s interesting how there are people who are sensitive to this without realising, and you see people who deliberately identify with niche things, not out of genuine interest, but to look a certain way. It’s almost like a way to make a point, but miss it at the same time. I don’t know how I feel about social media most times, because I’m overthinking whether I’m being genuinely being me, or I’m unconsciously trying to look that way. It’s because of the gaze. It’s a public space where we mask. When I watch videos about the author talking how they like quiet people. It’s really odd that there are comments on there of people writing ‘that’s me’. Surely that’s the section where you know you are going to be seen. I passively just read comments more than participating. And when I participate, it feels like I’m performing for my crush, or someone who I want to look at my comment. Call me an uncool lurker if you will. (I’m beginning to think why the hell am I posting on social media).

This is why I’m attracted to my professional goals but repulsed by it. I want to make my own rules, do what I want and keep myself to myself, but I long for the security it provides, as well as the benefits of being a part of a group. Leave join, leave join. Does it sound familiar?