Design and future applications

¶ … Future

Born under Saturn

According to Born Under Saturn, over the course of the Middle Ages, a new paradigm was born. Before, in the ancient world, artists functioned anonymously. Artists were seen as craftsmen who produced works, often in a fairly formulaic manner, for specific religious and civic purposes. In the Middle Ages, artists as individual creators with unique visions became more important in the culture. Gradually, the reverence for the 'magic object' became transferred onto the artist him or herself.

There are some perils to this paradigm. Firstly, it tends to isolate the artist from any sense of community. The technique, craftsmanship, and assumptions of what constitutes art are disengaged from the production of the work. Artists are seen as 'natural' and either born or not born, rather than created. This mystification of the character of the artist can lead to certain persons being shut out of the possibilities of generating art and gaining the right to create art because they are excluded from the category of geniuses, such as women.

Ideas are not generated in isolation. Even if the artist may come up with his or her idea sitting in a state of solitude, the artist is still the receptacle of cultural ideas and conceptions. Also, the reception of the artist is highly culturally 'bound.' What we think of as genius is impacted by what we learn is 'correct,' artistically speaking, and although some artists may move our culture forward in terms of its ability to conceptualize art in a different fashion, there is a discernable progression from one idea to the next. Nothing comes from nothing. What would seem like a problem, or simply a mess to a 19th century viewer might look like great art to a 21st century gazer, simply because he or she had been schooled in the artistic observation techniques of the 20th century movements of Cubism or Abstract Expressionism.

Q2. The Tragedy of the Commons

The tragedy of the commons is the tendency to overuse natural resources to the point that they are depleted. For example, if a field is given over to common use for sheep, more and more shepherds will use the field for grazing, until it is entirely absent of grass. In contrast, if someone owns the field, he or she will regulate its use to ensure that it is not over-stressed, because the owner feels a sense of responsibility to the field, along with his or her own, personal sheep. The economic interests of the field's owners ensure continued maintenance, while the common, freeloading shepherds only have their own interests at stake.

This can become a grave problem, as is evident when the use of any public resource (even a public bathroom) deteriorates because of a lack of common, social, and civic obligations. The best method to ensure that overconsumption does not take place is to regulate the number of individuals who can use the common resource at any one time, and prevent them from using specific parts of the field so the field can replenish itself. The question of 'needs vs. wants' is less relevant in this particular instance, because it is in reference to a natural resource. It is not that every person has different needs that must be satisfied -- rather, the field has needs that must be honored, and if they are not, then the entire population of sheepherders will suffer.