No. Without meaning any disrespect to social activism, I see lot’s of people who react to the system and want to fix it. I don’t see myself in this dynamics.
I prefer creation than reaction. I prefer to imagine and invent something so new that the old doesn’t need to exist anymore. Eventually it will fall from the branch by itself. Reacting leads to what I call symbiotic polarization: right wing and left wing ; unions and corporations, press and power ; Jews and Muslims ; pro and anti nuclear energy ; pro and anti GMOs ; ecologists and liberals ; the 99% and the 1% ; the “we” and the terrorists ; etc. Each side becomes the problem of the other, each side evolves proportionally to the other, and therefore traps itself in the paradigm of the other. In the end it produces a very stable social body, set down on two opposed legs.
Even if we don’t see ennemies, looking at the world like a problem to solve does place us in a form of reaction too. We enclose ourselves in the statement of the problem, therefore in its paradigm. Living in a reality represented as a problem –climate warming, social inequalities, pollution, ignorance, consumerism, imperialism, etc– doesn’t attract me at all. I feel locked and limited. And I see joy collapse.
I love to lit the spark and make the artist snort! I love to spring up new worlds! And if in these new realities old problems don’t appear again, good!
Art manifests itself in thousand different ways. Some we know them well: music, writing, painting, dance, architecture… I also include science. Yes. The statement of new theories, empirical imagination, technical innovation, the invention of new languages to give substance to new realities of our sense experience… many forms that arise from the being! Like all arts, science faces academism, the sterile repeating of the model. I think most people perceive science from its academic side. It doesn’t interest me. I love art-science, the one that invents new worlds.
Science, writing, martial arts and music thrill me up to the stars.