ART, INTELLECT AND SOCIAL INTERCOURSE

Jesse Algeron Rhines

Artistic abilities reside in the mind. It is the mind's ability to conceive new and aesthetically pleasing productions and then its ability to employ physical attributes in the articulation of these new products which we call art.

Intellectual abilities also reside in the mind and, in order to be judged intellectual or not, must find some physical agent of expression. However, where the artistic impetus is to produce something new and aesthetically pleasing the intellectual impetus is to profoundly understand relationships between existing (yet, not necessarily physical) things, and/or between new things. The artistic and the intellectual are different though not mutually exclusive processes. It is in the initial processes of artistry and intellectuality that a confusion arises wherein the two processes are seen by some to be interchangeable. Assumed interchangeability can lead to crisis by replacing objective with subjective production processes. In a social context where the artist and the intellectual consider the same phenomena and wherein the intellectual and the artist cannot differentiate their respective productive processes such replacement may lead to unwarranted subjective bias in the process of social decision-making.

Differences between artistry and intellectuality exist on three levels. The first has to do with their respective role/goals: one to produce aesthetic newness and the other to understand. The second level difference between the intellectual and the artist is the position in which he or she places his or her self in relation to the thing produced. The artist places himself at the center saying: "This particular work of art could not have been produced without me, my individual hand, experience or interpretation". The artist, then, is inherently and admittedly subjective and biased-- his creations represent his point of view only. The intellectual, on the other hand says: "I have isolated a particular relationship between certain things, but anyone could have isolated the same relationship had they been willing to view these things from a sufficiently similar vantage point". The intellectual attempts objectivity in establishing his point of view. He stands within the crowd with other observers of the phenomena he's isolated.

This secondary difference presupposes a third difference between the intellectual and the artist, that is the rules by which they guide their productive processes. The artist is guided only by the physical rules which govern the physical media employed in either conception or production: The colors and texture of paints, the level of technology available at the time of production, his or her own mental capacities. Anything produced under these constraints is acceptable because what the artist wishes to produce is his or her own personal view without regard to how an external viewer interprets or understands the product. The intellectual, however is constrained by the rules of discourse because his goal is precisely that understanding by an external audience which the artist abjures. Where the artist can rest satisfied with the thickness of the lead of his pencil the intellectual cannot be satisfied until the words he or she writes with that pencil make sense grammatically and conceptually. While the artist can be satisfied even if his product is never successful financially or beyond a very small group of as few as one, that being himself, the intellectual produces with an audience in addition to himself in mind whether or not that audience exists at the time of production.

In creating newness the artist builds upon what already exists and responds to his or her environment. Similarly, the contemporary intellectual juxtaposes his view next to that of his predecessors and within the context of current reality. Both the artist and the intellectual, necessarily use mental processes in developing their decisions as to where their physical efforts should be placed. In playing out their respective roles both the intellectual and the artist review the same historical and contemporary material, that is, all things which exist. Unlike the political theorist or the historian who also build upon past events and attempt to fit in with current reality, the intellectual and the artist have a much broader purview. There is nothing that is outside of their fields of endeavor. It is left to the individual artist or intellectual to limit his or her area of endeavor in an effort to be "effective". It is the breadth of purview and applied mental ability which lead to the assumption of interchangeability of artistic and intellectual processes. If society accepts an interchangeability between the artistic and intellectual processes it risks the replacement of objective, reasoned opinion, as reached by the intellectual, with the singular, inherently biased view of the artist.

In sum, then, there are three primary levels of difference between the artist and the intellectual. 1) Role/Goal: the artist produces newness while the intellectual produces understanding; 2) Self-positioning: the artist is the central, subjective force of his productions where the intellectual has happened upon his productions as might anyone else, he attempts objectivity; and 3) Rule observance: the artist is subject only to the physical laws of his media where the intellectual is subject to the interpretations and understandings of an external audience. It is the broad purview combined with the initial mental impetus for production which causes the work and goals of the intellectual and the artist to become confused and for many to think that their tasks are, to a great degree, interchangeable.