I wonder how slaves manage.  Is it that fear results in legitimacy, death or revolt.  Of these, it is chains that suggest the powerful are most in awe of revolution.

   When Kropotkin struggled with his science of society, his final conclusion consisted primarily of an acceptance that though the science was young, he remained optimistic.  Since then social science has fallen into a wonderful functionalism, out of which the powerful expect useful answers.

   This returns the burden of  understanding society to something like poets, and mystics, or that ragtag collective loosely defined as art.

    But what is art.  In the understanding of slaves there are three kinds of art.  Art that wants to be accepted.  Art that doesn't give a damn.  Art that seeks change.  This appears to mean, that art is what people want it to be.

   In the wonderful world of functionalism better to react with the idea that art is a language of concrete forms.  A sharing of ideas.

   In my mind, however, I cannot get away from the 'not giving a damn' of a perhaps freer isolated being and the forms this freer thing produces.  These freer forms are worth following, not because of change or legitimacy, but because "creative is".

Previous  Next