I have always understood that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” but never quite considered the implications that this has on our society. Jean DuBuffet states that, “No one doubts for an instant that beauty exists, but you’ll never find two people who agree on which objects are beautiful” (DuBuffet 13). So, while beauty—as a concept—is a universal truth, that which is considered beautiful is not. This idea that beauty is relative—yet greatly valuable—is more prevalent in our society than we realize. Those with privilege decide what is beautiful, and this affects how everyone else must perceive it. This perpetuates the “us versus them” mentality that seems to have a hold on everyone, and it is only when “the other” (aka the non-privileged) members of society conform to what “the accepted” deem beautiful that they are then accepted themselves.
This is starting to change, though. With the rise of the internet—and a plethora of other communication technologies—people from disparate social groups have greater means of connecting with each other. The internet is causing a paradigm shift in our society, serving as a medium of discourse between “the accepted” and “the other.” Those without privilege are starting to make their voices heard, and those with privilege now have an opportunity to listen. This goes hand-in-hand with what Richard and Susan Roth call “cognitive decolonization,” or “dismantling hierarchies, relinquishing privilege, and standing in opposition to the forces of exclusion” (Roth 6). They claim that this is the ethical task of the art world, but what is art if not self-expression through a medium? Is that not what the internet is allowing society to do? Marginalized groups are fighting to gain privileges that the dominant group has, and this has been made possible through art and design. In my opinion, true beauty is born of collaboration. When people use their differences as a way to connect, achievement flourishes. And, while we still have a long way to go, it seems as though society is starting to take that approach.
As a wealthy, white child growing up in Hong Kong, I personally benefited from the immense privileges I was afforded—despite being a minority in that city. This further proves the point that modernism favors hierarchies, and those hierarchies, though defined by western ideals, are still experienced worldwide. The decolonization of Hong Kong, though, is what led to my childhood being a synthesis of modernism and postmodernism. In “The Postmodern Condition,” Jean-Francois Lyotard describes postmodernism as an accumulation of different cultures (Lyotard). In this situation, my parents learned as much from us as I did from them, which dismantled the familial hierarchy that modernism enforces. My parents allowed me to question their choices and ideals, which not only gave me the gift of having an open mind, but also taught me that there are no universal values (McEvilley 24).
While technology changes, it always exists to serve as many people as possible. Dr. Sharon Joines, professor at the NCSU College of Design, claims it is more of a thought process than anything. In terms of global design, Joines is a firm believer that the East far outpaces the West. She feels as though it’s hard for us to admit that we’re lagging as a society and that it is exactly this mindset that holds us back from progress. I see this as a reflection on the College of Design as well: The college is known for its studio majors and caters mostly to them, yet research is such an integral part of design that it makes no sense to exclude those students of Design Studies from the picture. Research is the one thing that everyone in the college should be doing. There needs to be a more collaborative effort between makers and thinkers. It is difficult, however, for anyone to admit that they might not be doing something in the best way, and—in my experience—designers and artists can get stuck in their own heads.
When asked what he would teach if given the opportunity, Milton Glaser answered that “A designer’s role is one in which we have to be at least conscious of the consequences of what we transmit to others” (Glaser). In other words, we have to be conscious of the cause and effect of our designs and our actions. External influences shape our minds, which shape our designs. When people view those designs, some type of information is transmitted, even if it’s only on a subconscious level. I have always gotten the notion that, when Americans talk about people from other countries, they don’t see them in the same way as they see other Americans. It’s all present in the language, and American storytellers use this to their advantage; they use America’s love of competition and alienation from the rest of the world to invoke certain feelings about current events—most often involving war.
We want to be the best. We want to beat them. We need to help the others. They need our help.
All this rhetoric of swooping in to defend the forces of good against evil sounds all too much like the “white man’s burden,” how colonization is seen as “helping” countries that aren’t up to Western standards. In this era of information, propaganda looks very different than it did during World Wars I and II. Propaganda has evolved with the technology and the mindsets of the age. Nowadays, war broadcasting on news networks is treated like entertainment. It’s almost like a sport: our team versus their team, and you’re not a real fan if you don’t support the game.
Not enough people question the politics and religion their parents teach them at a young age. As a result, they never learn to question other things. They accept anything they hear on the news, see on social media, maybe even hear from a friend (who shares their views). There is too much accepting and not enough questioning. People rely too much on tradition, and that is what keeps us stuck in the past. There’s no way to make progress if we keep doing the same things.
A major part of questioning is to gain understanding. That is why it is important to hear the other side of the argument. It is important to notice and be proud of our differences but not to the point where we completely alienate ourselves. The school systems in America need to do a better job of teaching the history of our country in an unbiased way. White history is the standard, but white people aren’t the only people who live in America (though many seem to believe this).
While our world is full of hierarchy and suppression, I also see it shifting to a more collaborative society. Advances in communication technologies are allowing people to see and learn from new perspectives, but only if they make sure to keep an open mind. Collaboration can’t happen without an open mind, and I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to question. Hierarchies exist on all scales, and I think that, if we recognize this as a society, we can eventually dismantle the social hierarchies that dominate our everyday lives.
Works Cited
Clark, Hazel and David Brody. Design Studies a Reader. Bloomsbury, London, 2016.
Roth, Richard and Susan. Beauty is Nowhere: Ethical Issues in Art and Design. G & B
Arts International, 1998, p.6.
Dubuffet, Jean, et al. Beauty Is Nowhere: Ethical Issues in Art and Design. G & B Arts
International, 1998.
McEvilley, Thomas. Beauty Is Nowhere: Ethical Issues in Art and Design. G & B Arts
International, 1998, p.26.
House, Neeley, et al. Fully Awake: Black Mountain College. Documentary Educational
Resources, 2008.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition a Report on Knowledge. University
Press, 1997.
“War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (2007)” IMDb,
IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt1015246/.