It appears that organization of societies fall in two broad categories. One, the actions of individuals are governed, primarily, by the well being of all, or the larger common good. In the other, individual actions focus towards the betterment of self, and expressions of individual freedom. The former category broadly describes a classic oriental model, where historically, civilizations and societies of east, flourished without particular individual influences -where social movements forward in arts and sciences were a progression of social evolution under benign monarchies during times of peace. Thus, some of the outstanding examples in early Indian arts and architecture are symphonies of orchestrated effort, where individual artistry although recognisable, is subsidiary to the movement of the piece as a whole.
Diametrically opposed to this was the occidental model. In Renaissance- an individual was born, created , shone brilliantly, and by his light, illuminated a great social movement forward in arts, sciences, literary and philosophical thought. Great masters lived, ruled, swayed entire societies, becoming heroes, inspirations to generations yet waiting to be born. These masters too were nurtured by discerning patrons who supported their lifestyles and liberties required to evolve as artists.
Within the current homogenised and globalised world, market trends govern growth-individual or social; more accurately, certain aspects of profitable, profiteering growth. Are these pertinent to either individual or social movement forward? in terms of basic rights to life, liberty, pursuits of happiness? for all?
Some cud for me to chew on....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment