Art that modifies biased, misleading, and/or symbolically inappropriate art, rather than destroy or remove that art, so what that art wasn’t fair about isn’t forgotten like it was never done or might not happen again.
There’s next to nothing online about this I was able to find in a quick Internet search.
Except that I know it came from the TEDTalk below by Titus Kaphar, and I LOVE the concept!
With more on how art changes us from the TEDRadio Hour podcast episode below…
But here’s what you do with this, think about how you’d amend art that is biased or misleading!
Of course, that’d require you to be aware enough to recognize what art needed amendment.
Then be creative for how you can amend it.
I’ll refrain from giving examples of art amendment only because it would be fully of judgmental controversy. I would have to pass judgment on what art I thought needed amending, and why. Then I’d have to give ideas of how I thought I could amend it, which people would judge to see if it would make the art any better. That’s after they’d judge my judgment on the art needing amending and my reason/s for it.
Now, I’m not shy about courting controversy, but I am strategic about it. A blog post where it’s hard to have a conversation about it isn’t my idea of such a venue. Put me in a crowd where I can have face to face dialogue? Then hell yeah! Bring it!
That’s not to suggest I’d be looking for a combative scene, hoping to win or something. No. That’s where I’d love to engage and see what becomes of it all, whether I’m right, wrong, or we all would come up with something better than any of us might have been able to come up with on our own. That’s my kind of courting controversy!
Prosopagnosia, also called face blindness, is a cognitive disorder of face perception in which the ability to recognize familiar faces, including one’s own face (self-recognition), is impaired, while other aspects of visual processing (e.g., object discrimination) and intellectual functioning (e.g., decision-making) remain intact.
Basically, you just can’t recognize faces, including your own, or have a lot of difficulty doing so, despite your ability to recognize other things and make decisions being quite normal or even good.
From this really interesting TEDRadio Hour podcast…
In plainer language, it confirms that a child has reached an age where they realize a person can see the world differently from how they do. That’s if the child passes the test, of course. Sad state of the world is such that there are more than enough adults these days who would fail this test.
It’s a little out there, but I love this concept because it brings out more empathy in me. If everything was “living” in the sense of having consciousness, rather than a lot being inanimate, then I would care about it all more. I just naturally care more about living things, even if “care” were not the loving kind, but rather the kind that has an emotional response rather than indifference. If everything were as such, then I feel like I care that much more about everything around me, from the immediate to what I can see in the sky at the far reaches of the galaxy and universe.
While the word is new to me, the concept is not because I had philosophized this very thing on my own accord in my late teens while learning chemistry and other sciences! I didn’t think of it as fantasy or philosophy, though, seeing how atoms and molecules in chemical reactions behave, from a flask to weather systems to stars in astrophysics. While it may be laws of nature (science) that govern these events, it’s not a far stretch to think that the groups of molecules and atoms, and not others like them because no reaction is infinite, behaved like groups of people within society. That’s how I was able to articulate the above on why I liked the idea.
From this great TEDRadio Hour podcast focused on the brain.
Digital Citizen 