Yesterday I went to a panel discussion that included George Soros, Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia U.), and Nouriel Roubini (NYU, the economist who predicted our entire economy would collapse back in the late 90s). These are some of the brightest financial and economic minds in the world, and they had come together to answer the question, Can we save the global economy?
It was beyond inspiring. The world is very much in dire straits right now, but there are ways that we can rebuild the world, and this time, make it better. It will take sacrifice, especially including the sacrifice of the distinctly American mindset that we can all be individualistic, independent cowboys. The truth is, we need other people and they need us. Everything we do affects everyone else, and we have to start being responsive and responsible.
But the first question from the audience after the panel discussion was, What is the role of art in the effort to save the global economy? It was asked in that particularly plaintive tone typically used by an artist who lives in his or her head, and there was a wave of anger and annoyance from the audience and panelists at the asker. I felt it, too! It seemed so damned self-serving of this person to look at the absolute mess the world is in and still her first thought was, do I still get to do what I want? She seemed criminally frivolous.
Roubini answered the question. The gist of what he said was, To save the world, we need builders. We need real growth, not superficial tinkerings. We need engineers far more than we need artists.
Uh oh. Doesn’t that sound like something the Inner Critic would say?
It’s an old question (I can’t remember where I first saw it), but what would the American people be capable of doing, if we harnessed all the mental energy that we currently spend on memorizing sports statistics? Have Americans turned into the useless, airhead debutantes of the world?
I’ve learned that when I hate something, I have to look at it closer, because there is usually some golden treasure hidden beneath my knee-jerk, but deeply passionate, reaction. After all, I’m a writer, I’m an artist – do I need to give up on that and go be an engineer of some kind? Isn’t that what the world needs from me?
So, I really have to face that question: Is there a role for art in saving the world?
I came up with a couple answers, but a distinction has to be made. Not between high art and pop art, but between private art and bare knuckle art. Private art is still worthwhile to make – for yourself. It clears your mind and balances and eases you. But bare knuckle art is very, very hard to make. It takes questioning yourself, your purpose, your mission, your worth, and anything you ever thought was true. Not to say you have to be a tortured artist, but you have to be willing to break yourself open to make it.
I think I can see a role for bare knuckle art in helping to rebuild the world…
- Bare knuckle artists are skeptics. They never take anything at face value, whereas it was people who took things at face value (how much money do I make in fees if I grant this sub-prime mortgage?) who drove our economy down.
- Bare knuckle art tells the truth. Bare knuckle artists are B.S. spotters. If every investment bank had had an artist with a blog on staff, maybe the truth would have been exposed before the banks collapsed.
- Bare knuckle art tells the truth in ways that are new enough and surprising enough that our poor eyes and ears, scarred over and stuffed with so much mindless entertainment, can see and hear it.
- If you spend your time making bare knuckle art, you will spend less time gorging on the crap that the world wants to sell you.
- If you spend your time looking at bare knuckle art, your defenses will be down and you will have to feel. And if you are spending time really feeling, not shutting down or veg-ing out, then you can feel compassion for the rest of the world.
So what do you think? Are these reasons simply justifications for my personal, self-serving choices in life? Or do you think artists can help in this day and age?