Art is subjective. Science is objective. And that's that... right?
I wonder what happens when we put Psychiatry into that equation; it's the objective study of the Subjective way a person perceives the world and how it translate into objective and observable patterns of behavior. I know, right? Mindfuck.
In relation to my previous post, I guess that's why it's so hard for people to integrate Psychiatry and the rest of Medicine in their minds, leading to the labels of people with Psychiatric disorders as "Abnormal", as opposed to just "Normal people with Psychiatric Disorders".
I often wonder about art. What's considered as art? When is something or someone "artistic"? Is it art just because the "artist" calls it art? Is there such as thing as bad art? We could go on and on about art techniques and the level of difficulty and amount of effort it took to create a piece of art in order to objectively evaluate it, but come on- we live in a world where people can just throw paint at a canvass and have it sell for hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars.
People with Psychiatric disorders, more often than not, are artistic. They're bloggers, notebook doodlers, sidewalk musicians, and etc. (end of thinking capacity) Their freedom from the objectiveness of the world lets them create subjective beauty; I think it's easier to create something beautiful when you're not analyzing everything in the world the whole time. I guess that's why so few critics are actually good at whatever it is they're critiquing.
Here's a thought: Do artists deserve to be paid more than doctors? Do artists deserve to be richer than people who save lives everyday? If you answer no to that, then why don't we extend the scope of that question? Does anyone deserve to be paid more than doctors? Does Lebron James, with his (seemingly) steroid-enhanced muscles and basketball skill, deserve to make more money than a neurosurgeon?
Would it have been better for that neurosurgeon, with his near infinite level of hand-eye coordination, to have become an artist instead? Would he have made the world a better place? What would happen to all the people he saved as a surgeon? Oh, but what would happen to all the people he would have inspired with his art if he had chosen the path of Medicine instead?
It doesn't seem fair. Hell, it doesn't seem objective. And I guess things will forever be unfair as long as we live in a non-Utilitarian world. Things don't have to be useful to be of any value in this world; things just have to be valuable because we say they're valuable. We create our own realities, and I guess we're all a little bit insane that way.
The objective utility of an object does not necessarily correspond to the subjective value it has in our hearts. I love the Phantom of the Opera, but instead of watching it on my Laptop I could've studied the entire chapter on the Human Appendix from my Surgery book. I just wasted my time, I know- but it made me happy. It made me happy enough so that I wouldn't become depressed (a slippery slope, I know), so I could finish medical school so that I can finally become a doctor and be an object of objective utility to the world- but I could only do that because subjectively, I felt happy and content with my life as a Medical Intern/ Art Appreciator/ Amateur Artist.
Without subjectivity, there would be no love of the arts. Heck- there would be no love. Admit it- objectively speaking there is nothing special about the members of our family, our friends, or our crush, but we still love them because of how they subjectively make us feel. A totally objective world would be emotionless and I wouldn't want to live there. So let's all be a little bit insane, and be subjectively objective.
No comments:
Post a Comment