Survival of the fittest

Actually, you can have natural evolution: survival of the fittest, social Darwinism: survival of the richest, and creative Darwinism: survival of the serendipitous.

Darwinian theory was a useful teaching image. A reader’s view of the origin of life and species notwithstanding, the unique result of an artist’s evolving imagination, style, use of tools and appetite for work is a useful incentive to an emerging artist like me – still uncertain what I may yet become.

From one who has several graduate degrees in theology, philosophy and psychology, I cannot allow the “idiot” remark to go unanswered. I know this is an art forum,but some things need answering. Darwin was NOT an idiot, and if he was, what does that say about Daniel, or the rest of us for that matter. Keep evolving, we’ll all be better for it!

Oh dear, the Holy Inquisition is knocking on your door!

My humble favors to you on what I feel is a most thoughtful, and heartfelt post. Its says a great deal in a simple, effective way which I would say you would find as a definition for some as really great Art.

I have only been a subscriber for a short time but it seems your post always strikes a chord. I picked up my first paint brush to attempt to make art two years ago and I have fallen deeply and truly “in love.” Your words inspire me to work hard (how hard is it when you love the process?) and try to get better. I see the progress in the two years and HOPE to (and will) make progress at getting better.

Many years ago, an excellent and dedicated college art instructor of mine who believed a professional artist must always exhibit work once said to some of the whining artists in the class, “If you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.”

Hurrah! This missive about “creative survival” and “ecological niche” are like a pat on the back for me. The more I ignore the well-meaning souls who would like me to paint more “traditionally” and follow my own path, the more satisfied I am as an artist. I am constantly trying new ideas and marketing like heck. I may not be evolving into an eagle but I am certainly becoming a happy little bat!

As an emerging artist I am trying to cultivate good business habits before I need them. Right now my biggest problem is tracking inventory. I have paintings in closets, paintings in public rotations, paintings on the internet, paintings at a hair salon….and for the life of me I cannot come up with a system that satisfies my need to know where everything is and what prices, sizes etc are involved. I am looking for the ideal software: that would mean it is affordable, intuitive, flexible and will call up a variety of fields. If I could get this into my computer and weekly business routine I know it would save a lot of time doubling back thru files and lists to recheck details. Do you or your readers have any suggestions? cindymichaud@cfl.rr.com enjoy my art at: www.cindymichaud.com www.cindymichaudart.etsy.com www.piecesof8art.blogspot.com

Shakespeare had something right when he said something like ‘me thinks thou dost protest too much’ and I suspect Daniel Ashbeck has fallen into this category for the moment. The best I can tell Darwin has not been completely discredited and there is still a great deal of utility in understanding his THEORIES. There have been critiques and there are problematic issues in the fossil record, and along with Mendel and genetics has provided the basis for much science that has greatly furthered our ability to feed, shelter, provide clothing, and treat the ill. I marvel at the people who reject Darwin, Mendel, but like and enjoy the benefits these theories have provided. Many foods (plants and animals) and medicines are based on these theories, why do you think your doctor asks about family history of cancer, heart disease etc. Many medicines are based on this. As controversial as medical experimentation on animals is, it has proven predictive, and seems to be true because of a partially shared biology. Absolutely there are problems in the evolutionary theory, there are still gaps in the fossil record, some reject the notion of incremental change as fostering survival, some animals have changed very little in millions of years (ex bats) and numerous other criticisms. That said there is much utility derived from work based on these theories. The analogy to art development or progress may also work in the sense art has both incremental changes and sudden massive mutations but you can usually see the roots of the previous in the new. One does hope however that art critics and the public provide a good basis for culling what should survive. There are many examples where it seems questionable. JS Bach was considered second rate in his time, Van Gogh never sold much and was largely ignored until after his death and we all can name a few more. On the other hand we all know of faddish junk that is succeeding or succeeded for a time. The real question for an artist evaluating Robert’s thesis is did it help you understand your work, others’ work, did it challenge, did it inspire – even with a violent reaction against.

Though once a rabid evolutionist, I’ve come to see that the complexity of cells (seen as mere blobs of jelly during Darwin’s time) as well as complex structures like the eye (which Darwin admitted were very hard to explain in evolutionary terms) make Darwin’s theory impossible to embrace. BUT… This doesn’t mean that the theory can’t be employed for creative purposes. In fact, if you look at most creative endeavors by mankind, there is a gradual refinement and evolutionary movement from one line of cars to the next, in industrial processes, or in the techniques used in the arts. So from that standpoint, evolution not only works but is a very useful tool to have in the artist’s bag of tricks.

There is no better way to weed out the watery, the unsubstantial and the pretenders. Mostly the economic climate is contrived and how much better for people to begin to really do their creative work, so we can live in environments full of lovingly made, purposeful things www.wholesalecrafts.com has done their best month of sales in YEARS! Perhaps the old ways of thinking about art are gone, but a more current, ancient, art- embedded -into- the- fabric- of- life approach is more able to be creatively seeded. Art is evolving into collaboration, community art, ways of addressing social concerns the playing field is wide open! The Art of today addresses the artist in each one of us, the muse, the dreamer — all singing parts of one amazing song.

I loved your article about Creative Darwinism. And great job on the follow-up/response! It all really resonates with what goes on when a sudden change in an artist’s direction hits! (happening here) Thank you for your thoughtful articles. ALL of them! http://barbarafricksavage.com

You still seem to be missing the point. Please answer this question: Is the written code at the very center of every cell in your body written by the hand of God or the vagaries of chance. If your surviving art is the result of your best efforts with the gifting of your inner code, and the amazing scientific advances of our age be the result of man’s most earnest application of their coded intelligence shouldn’t we honor the one in whose image we are created? Dominion is not accidental in my sincere opinion.

Ashbeck is an idiot,” wrote subscriber Jim Cowan. “All of his ideas on Darwin have been completely discredited.” I must admire Robert Genn for his ability to allow drivel without resorting to impassioned response. I do not have that gift.

Mr. Daniel Ashbeck’s calling Charles Darwin an idiot because his ideas have been disproved is in itself idiotic. With Dan’s logic, most of our greatest scientific minds must also have been idiots, since most every revolutionary scientific idea has also been disproved. And, most probably, so will many of today’s.

“Darwin was an idiot,” wrote subscriber Daniel Ashbeck. “All of his ideas have been completely discredited.” This would be really big news if it were true. Maybe Newton’s ideas about gravity will be debunked next.

I’ll assume Ashbeck’s rejection of Darwin’s ideas is founded on religion. Speaking of idiots…

How to turn someone’s foolish comments into good painting advice.

Nevertheless, Robert’s metaphor was indeed brilliant. If we’re not evolving, we’re in serious trouble.

This is the best art forum on the net — best informed writers-in most of the time, even if it does raise hackles from time to time. That’s good isn’t it? I just love it.

Fall in love with the process and AND EXPERIMENT! Don’t wallow in the shallows.

I love being a mutant! Anything else is boring!

That’ll teach you too use Darwin theory to make your point :-) The point becomes completely missed. It’s like using a moment from the life of Bush or Clinton to make a point. All people see is Bush or Clinton and then get their panties in a wad. Point missed. :-) Live and learn friend.

Fortunately many people read it and got it. But please don’t mention those guys again, particularly Bush! :)

Suspicions regarding Ashbeck and Creationism are beginning to simmer in the primordial soup. God help us all !

If Darwin was an idiot, then I must be a Monkey’s Uncle — idiots don’t have State Funerals — Darwin an idiot? I think not. Rather he opened up a world to discovery and paid dearly for his work, which was successful in the pulling certain Heads out of the sands of time. We think creatively and ask the questions; what can be and what is. Possibly Daniel Ashbeck feels a strong sense that people have gone to hell for Darwin’s theory and morally he had to speak up. He’s passionate for his beliefs. In playing the devils advocate, it took an awesome amount of intelligence to design the universe and the physical body. Possibly the nature of intelligence is not purely physical, possibly its more akin to Spirit, lacking a better word. The word Spirit is itself universal, uplifting — all knowing and yes, appreciative of a kind soul and moved by itself within each one — not withholding. A gentleman always finds his words before he speaks them, or in this case, writes them.

Thanks for teasing my grey smatter. I appreciated your intellectual approach to the subject of evolution. I have a less erudite explanation but still like to explain it, if to no one but myself. It is that when man creates anything, be it of positive or negative consequence, i.e. be it for instance nuclear fission or genetically enhanced food chain, we subsequently pay the price whether it enhances or destroys life and my point is that both events are a “natural” part of evolution since nothing devolves into nothing. Why do we separate man-made from nature-made? We are both one and the same.

Darwin’s theory is well argued and because my faith is not threatened I feel comfortable accepting those points that make sense and, for the moment, question those points which do not. But he exhibited great courage knowing what he would face. And if he is an idiot then so too is Newton, Einstein, and Hawking all of whom have theories that have either been partially dissproven or are unprovable. They are theories and therefore are meant to be studied and either proven or disproven but I believe that God (or whatever you want to call our maker) gave us brains to think and question and possibly even go against popular convention.

There is a term, “begging the question,” that has been much abused of late, esp, by journalists who should know better saying, “Which begs the question…” (meaning it poses the question). We who have evolved from single-cell to multi-cellular creatures to upright omnivores with a prefrontal cortex look back and say, “How could this have happened by chance?” Had we come to be in a totally different form, say intelligent gas or mobile carrots, they’d be asking the same thing. Ultimately, the existence or nonexistence of God and “intelligent design” (seems rather brutal to me, actually) are matters of faith and belief, not knowledge. And vast indeed is the difference between belief (which is unsubstantiated opinion, however deeply held or widely shared) and knowledge (which come from data, observation, repeatability and sharable experience. No, Darwin was not an idiot. But looking at some opinions that travel far and wide these days, there are moments when I wonder if evolution is still operating.

I must put in my opinion since the comments seem a bit one-sided. I’ll point out that the concept of evolution does ask you to view the world with one eye shut; it is only half the picture. Viewing the world around us, it’s true that the Imperfect is constantly tranforming into the Perfect: the egg becomes a bird; a tiny acorn becomes a tree; a baby becomes a adult human. But what evolutionists miss is that the Imperfect is always the product of the Perfect: the egg stems from a full grown bird, the acorn drops from a mature tree, the baby comes from a perfectly formed adult human body. Art itself is created by the intelligent mind of a human — it does not evolve from nothing, though the artist progresses by experience, and trial and error. There is nothing on earth today that we have witnessed evolve from first nothing — then a simplistic form — and progress from there. What we do see is that the imperfect always stems from the perfect. I for one cannot convince myself to logically accept, contrary to the pattern we witness on earth today, that the imperfect can come into being from nothing, and raise itself to perfection without any intelligent Being to instill in it what the idea of perfection even is. Evolutionists can go on trying to survive. I prefer to thrive. Thank you Robert for bringing up such an interesting topic!

Daniel Ashbeck is an idiot.

Evolution has nothing to do with perfect coming from imperfect or vice versa. It doesn’t even mention “perfect” but “fittest”. For example, in some environments dumb can be fitter than smart. The main point is that the fit survives and unfit doesn’t. Before commenting on something, you have to have at least minimally educated yourself about it objectively, don’t just listen to the words of mouths that are closest to you.

Darwin’s theory of evolution is not about change occurring in a single organism in its growth from egg to bird, etc. It refers to change in inherited traits over succeeding generations. Maybe this misunderstanding is one reason why some people have trouble accepting it. While I enjoyed the spirit of the original post and what it had to say about growth and survival, perhaps Darwin’s theory of evolution is not the best analogy for growth in an artist.

Thinking people need to be concerned with the current dumbing down of our societies. In democratic lands we allow the opinions of people like the Sarah loving, Beck hugging Daniel Ashbeck, and indeed they may inspire more noble minds to contribute by intelligent rebuttal. But when too many turn to limited ways of thinking, society is in jeopardy, and decline may even be hastened. Artists, particularly, need to rise above all this and be clear, creative, inquisitive, inventive and beautiful.

I agree with most of what you say, D.W. Grewal, but I’m curious. What is your basis for saying that Ashbeck is “Sarah loving, Beck hugging”.

Survival of the Fittest is just about my favourite article that you have written. There is something that never gets covered that I consider important to art, for me, and for others, and that is the reason a person initially turns to art. Nowadays ‘Art Therapists’ are turning up all over the place. Well, it turns out I was my own art therapist all along……that deep emotional churning that takes place when you feel powerless to change some things in your life, and you pick up a brush or a pencil and the focus transcends like a meditation……and, as in most fairy tales, you have escaped to somewhere where it all feels and looks differently, and you can come back to life issues transported from their immediacy…. All of my best work has come about from this deep need to feel differently as soon as possible, without medication, without a holiday trip…… For me it started as a child migrant living in a bleak ‘out the back’ apartment (behind a landlord) that had been a milk depot, grey sleat like stone entrance and nowhere to play and, my mother brought home a little packet of assorted brightly colored paper. She cut some petal shapes and things for me (age 3) to arrange, and lit up my life.

Darwin began a process of investigating speciation that continues today, when theories (not guesses, but theory in the scientific sense) are being continuously refined, turned about, and augmented. Darwin’s ideas might have been “completely discredited” by some with an a priori religious notion, but far from being an idiot he is widely revered as a pioneer in a difficult and complex scientific journey.

Darwin started: I have reason to assume — he never invented Darwinism, “Darwinism” came to him, so calling him idiot is calling someone else idiot — maybe GOD? your creationists’ GOD?