A recent discussion my good friend started seemed to have sparked a lot of contr oversy.

Amongst a continuum of valid anxieties a lot of humans face, he brought to our a ttention; the politics of conservatism, its affects on art, what we accept as no rmalcy and how technology seems to have taken over our base human nature. I love thought and people, however sometimes I wonder Where does it all start? Identity and its anxietiesI feel at the base of many historical movements and artistic anxieties there is a great focus on identity. We are concerned with our own image, who we are, who we want to be. At the same time who we dont want to be and what we dont want to as sociate with. Taboo has perhaps become that which previous generations have feared or decided to expel for whatever reason. Many of my classmates undertaking a particular cul ture studies unit wouldve remembered viewing a particularly graphic film called S hortbus. It depicted a story of the sexual life of many couples gay, straight and swingers who united in a place called Shortbus. There was a good portion of the lecture hall that could scarcely believe the movies screening was permitted. Bet ween the scenes of masturbation and sexual acrobatics, it was fair to say we had hit taboo. But hasnt sex been around for well longer than humans as we know them. How have we not gotten over it? John H. Arnold brings another interesting example on how what societies consider to be taboo invariably change dramatically through history. In his article The Killing of cats: or is the past a foreign country[2000], he outlines how killing cats has become less or more socially acceptable through various ages. At the s ame time he brings forth the important notion of mentality, explaining how the men tality of people through different ages and cultures will always differ with und erstandings between them always becoming an achievement in itself. It is difficult for 6 people to reach a consensus. Even harder for thousands of years of human history, a race which has now surpassed 6 billion individuals. Culture is a great place for controversy. It is great mental space that nations fight over as much as land. Where I live, not to far from my friend, we often he ar of the conservative capitalist world commodifying culture. It is here where w e often arise the anxiety of destroying creativity, the organic human image and everything which we may have once deemed natural. Manufactures technology to gai n profits, while distribution companies streamline formatted artistic content to the point where it all becomes homogenised anyway. How do we rebel in world tha t has no contrast left? Culture, movements and theories One of my favourite lecturers, one fine day, delivered a wonderfully passionate presentation on the people known as the Futurists. The Futurists delivered a man ifesto where they proclaimed their intention to glorify war, dreamed of adventurous steamers sniffing the horizon; great-breasted locomotives. [Marinettii, 1909] Th ey were in love with technology and the concept of the future, amongst a upheava l testosterone filled young navety. Nevertheless, what was the Futurist movement? Brief and perhaps short lived, but nonetheless like every other shift in thinkin g, a form of asserting an identity to the people of a certain era. That is not to say that the changes in history and our understanding of the worl d, the context of people are all intrinsically tied down to their identity withi n an era. However, a great deal of context becomes the basis for a formation of

identity. From music subcultures, to our grand-parents who remember wars and civ il unrest as a pivotal aspect of history they witnessed. We are what we have liv ed through. Quick re-cap of the last hundred years. Industrialisation, Electricity delivered to every home, The assembly line, Mass production, CFCs, creating hole in the ozone layer, the Atomic bomb, Mass destru ction, Gloom of potential global warming, Increased commodification of well every thing, Mass distribution, Miniaturization of transistor systems. All due to one culprit. Today, technology is evil and science is its father. In recent history technology has almost brought on the fear of a global nuclear winter. Some scientific chaps keep something known as the Doomsday Clock. It mov es closer to midnight around times of political unrest when men with great power move their thumbs closer to very big expensive red buttons that have the potent ial to unleash waves of death and years of war. Behind the trigger is often the image of an army of clinical cold cogs. Machines , built to destroy. This notion of mindless mechanics has become a common phobia , both within the physical aspects of tanks destroying our borders, to the threa t of science enabling the mass corruption of our minds with homogeneous images a nd conditioning. But do these mechanics really have some form of pseudo-soul? A blood thirsty agenda to consume humanity? Or have they simply become taboo? Of course not. The behaviour and employment of technology and science merely ech oes the mentality of its contemporary users. Facebook user, that is you. Technology is not an entity of its own, its an extremity of ourselves. Similarly science is an extension of our mind and the knowledge it can synthesise. In man y cases it can become a tool, a device, a strength and a weakness. However there is a general misconception that technology and science is a being itself. In ma ny ways it is, and it is called human. Whats the point? The point is that there is no boogie-monster made out of robotic circuitry and a tomic science that is trying to brainwash us. It is our own imaginations. From t he same imagination that creates music and paintings, is the imagination which c an dream up architecture, inspire masses to build civilisations and thread socia l order. The scariest thing is that our ability to realise our imagination in re ality is exponentially improving. What is important to realise is that the imagi nation can be as horrific as it can inspiring. Art is an invention of the imagination. In many cases it is glorified to be the ultimate source of beauty, spirituality, and connection with a greater purpose. However is it right to turn art into an ideologyt? Is it wise to purport science as a de-humanising device? If we support this binary we monopolise our very way of thinking, and this more than digital robots, homogenises our own mentality. Art is not a science through which the problems of life are to be solved. Artistry, like technology, has been used to concur minds. In the same way scienc e has been used to discover more about our inner selves. From the simplicities o f the Fibonacci sequence and its appearance everywhere in nature, to discovering the global respiration of the worlds ecosystems and revealing how connected we all really are. Science has given us a perception of belonging in recent history like never before, and art, for thousands of years has given us a purpose to be different.

Science and art are not as much different as they are similar. They are endeavou rs to understanding, creation and an effort to assert our humanity. Stand outside and listen to the breeze move between your ears and begin to think a little bit harder about every experience you are met with. Consider the world you live in as a bubble flying through space. Acknowledge the fact that the tre es around you and across the entire planet give you life. Appreciate the magnifi cence of sound, light and movement. Respect the fact that there are forces, life forms and levels of details smaller, larger and more complex than you can even see without looking for them. Realise that perhaps this gentle curiosity has a n ame. And it is science.