I love art. I deeply admire those who create what we listen to and what we see. But what about artists using their notoriety as a political platform to push their views on certain social or economical issues? Or artists elevated to God-like status while scientists, engineers and teachers are considered sub-human? And who in the art world are the worst offenders? Actors and musicians. If an alien race was researching and trying understand the western mind-set, they would be amused by our veneration of singers and actors, not inventors. What do musicians and actors really produce? Sights and sounds for the masses to enjoy. While I think their contributions to society certainly have value, there is a disconnect between their social status and that of the scientists and inventors of the world. There are hundreds of singers and actors that my 72 year old mother can rattle off with ease. The likes of Bono, Clint Eastwood, Flea, Lady Gaga, Angelina Jolie, Sting, John Travolta, Justin Bieber and the list would go on immemorial. How many scientists can you name? I can name four or five off the top of my head. How about engineers? Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Teachers? Professor Moriarty comes to mind - but he doesn't count. Zero. Entrepreneurs? Inventors?
Why aren't these creative people as widely revered as the guy who invented the moon walk, the stars of Twilight or Lady Gaga and her meat dress. Compared to the guy who invented the cell phone? I don't even know who that is. I'm going to have to look that one up. Or the Person who built the first personal computer or designed the first GPS? What about the astronauts on any of the shuttle missions? Who's on the international space station right now? The balance of notoriety between these two groups is obscenely skewed. Contributions to science and technology and those behind them aren't viewed as relevant compared to those who sing and act. There isn't an overnight cure for this societal discord. One article or a single blog isn't going to change a mind-set that has taken the better part of a century to form. Bringing this issue to light for just a few may cause a ripple effect. We're talking a about shift in social values that could easily take equally as long to manifest.
It all starts in the home and schools. It's a question of ideals so that the children fantasize about growing up to be the next software engineer, scientist or teacher instead of moving to Hollywood to be star. The problem being that children from the moment of birth are targeted by countless televisions programs that seem to say being stupid, thin and loud is how one makes it to god-like status. An idea to turn the tide I would like to steal from the Harry Potter series. The chocolate frog that was introduced on the train ride to Hogwarts came with trading cards of a famous witch or wizard. The same could be created for scientists, inventors and notable teachers. For example: Dr. Martin Cooper, inventor of the modern cell phone. There are is ample potential, the real challenge is getting kids interested in something like this. Another observation I have is that people in the public spotlight have legions of "handlers" in the background that coach these stars on how to respond during interviews among other things. The vast majority of scientists, inventors, engineers, entrepreneurs don't have this luxury. And when and if they get interviewed they come across boring or socially constipated. Let's make an effort to positively shape perceptions of these people too.
We, the consumers of media have a responsibility to the children change the values from worshiping anybody with the last name of Kardashian to recognizing and admiring the talents of our scientists, entrepreneurs, teachers and engineers. These are the people who are truly shaping our future.
Good discussion about a tricky topic. The disparirty between reverence for actors and musicians and those who are actually shaping our future is huge. It seems to me like you could begin your piece with "If an alien race was researching and trying..." and jump right into the main thrust of your argument. It doesn't seem like you need those previous sentences.
ReplyDelete