I don't feel that social responsibility is the right theme rather than personal responsibility. I think that being creative is as inherent to being human as smelling things is to be a dog.

Those of us who have chosen to pursue art long after our friends stopped enjoying it (almost invariably because they weren't 'as good as' someone else) have no responsibility to others.

Us artists do have a responsibility to ourselves to enjoy what we do and be honest with what we do, and when we do so the world at large benefits.

When I was 21 I had the brilliant idea to go to art college (nova scotia college of art and design, in NS Canada). I slowly stopped making art for myself in the late 80s'. I stopped feeling driven, or with passion about my ideas. No longer that burning desire to get to the studio. I allowed it to stop being important. I allowed it to happen when commerce took over my creative life. It drained the passion out of me. I worked for many years as a set decorator and prop master for TV commercials. Now that is a way to suck your brain dry of creativity. But I got paid very well! Then i found my way to work with birthing women, amazing how it makes me feel very creative.

DazCox -

Thank you for this comment. There is much to consider there. There are many options listed above, besides the social responsibility which you initially reject. Personal responsibility is an interesting suggestion and I want to think about this, but it seems to me you reject social responsibility, reframe the argument, and then return to reassert it in the end.

I agree, we (the artists) do owe ourselves something in terms of artistic endeavors, however, I believe that there is something bigger than ourselves inherent in art, whether it is dedication to our own vision/version of truth, beauty or some other abstract.

I strongly believe there is a difference between creativity and art (not all who create, create art) and that art must express something and it must express something to someone other than the artist. You have mentioned the abstract idea of honesty (and benefit to the world) - which does suggest social responsibility (in my mind)).

I think that is (part?) of what makes your creativity art. (smile).

Hi, Dewi,

I am saddened to hear of the effects of art school on your work and art. I perceive this change as a move away from social responsibility (away from expressing something meaningful to and of you) and towards the mercenary (expressing what some one else want s you to say in order to manipulate others). When you start communicating for money, you no longer send your own personal message. Your return to something meaningful to you, I think also gives/gave you the possibility of producing genuine art (again). For me this is socially responsible - combining your inherent values and your talents to "say" something that is important to you. (Just my take on this process. :-)

Roles of Art and Science in our lives is an often asked question. Here is my take on it.

Human beings have a very intersting ability. The ability to look deep within thier own consciousness with their imagination as the limit and also are able look otside of them in to the world much farther than any know star, again, only limited by their imagination.

All art is in the realm of this boundary limited by artists imagination.

The rules of science bind it within the limits of our logic and our senses.

Art is free of any known laws of nature. The artists imagination decides the rules. But the artist can make sense of his creation only if he can explain it to others within the the limits of logic and the senses. The combination of the artist's imagination and his explanation is what inspiration is made of.

This drives others to use thier imagination to use login and senses to go past existing known physical boundaries. The imagination and creativity expressed by scientists in going past the known boundary is what makes a good scientist an artist.

To answer your question, there are instances when art inspires a scientist and similarly many artists where inspired by new discoveries by scientists.

For example, As video cameras became popular more people are inspired to make movies. We can also argue that Cptain Kirk's communicator is like the current blue tooth technology.

It would be fair to say, that art has a greater sphere of influence than science but both science and art should inspire each other for human progress to be possible.

Yes, indeed. I recently went to an exhibit of photographs by a mircrobiologist - who did very colorful images inspired by electron microscope images.

here's a repost of my blog i wrote earlier today after reading this this morning!

I have to say that art has no responsibility to anyone except it’s maker. Jackson Pollock didn’t heed the responsibility to make art that was ‘understandable’ or helpful or informative or even ascetically "good" (to the majority of people at the time) yet he became one of the most famous artists ever.

Social responsibility changes over time and what one generation takes for granted another frowns upon or makes illegal. Girls used to get married at 13 and so if you painted a child bride back then it was a normal genre scene, now it is either a fairy tale painting or some psychological split with reality, perhaps in a criminal way. Balthus would never make it into a gallery these days because of current versions of social responsibility, yet his work is in the Met right across from a Gauguin painting.

A hundred years ago if you painted a certain leaf of the cannibus plant you were probably a botanist or illustrating a historical thesis, perhaps on the founding of America, a proud patriot and could hold your head high *ahem* in society, but now if you painted the very same leaf society says that you are probably a druggie and will be automatically labeled and catagorized, guilty by association at the very least. That same leaf art is now "harmful to society" see what I’m saying here? The art is still the same exact art but society decides who YOU are for making it.

I don’t think that society should have any influence on art, art is art and if others like it that’s great, if not then it is still art and just as valid a persuit as any other thing, perhaps one day others will appreciate that art but there’s hardly a prerequisite for art to be considered "good" or "acceptable".

Did Vincent Van Gogh have a responsibility to give up his ‘crazy dream of being a painter’ and become a productive member of society instead of a "leech" when it was obvious that no one outside his friends appreciated his art?

Society is like your mother, or a friendly guidance counselor, it wants you to do "well" for your own good, for the good of society but unfortunately it only considers the short term. I think Van Gogh would have killed himself sooner if he had given up painting and became a church janitor, which would probably be the only job he’d feel comfortable doing!

Society is healthy when people are allowed to "fail" in the short term because in the long term those failures might just be our proudest accomplishments, heck the US government itself used Jackson Pollock’s ‘action paintings’ as a ‘weapon’ in the cold war (because the Soviets were so proud of their ‘realism’ and therefore ‘behind the times’ etc).