Danielle Levy

It’s so easy to place art on the back burner to think it is important but not as worthwhile as some other aspect of our society.  That it can be a boon to our well being and that of society is not something we associate with art, yet a new study and a new program show us art not only benefits us as individuals but also as a society.

The study comes from Kings College in the UK where they measured people’s reaction to seeing original art, including taking samples of saliva. What they found is that the emotional experience affects our hormones and that affects our immune system. Hence our wellbeing is enhanced.  It’s much less so when people are exposed to copies of original works of art, yet the point is the same going to a gallery or a museum benefits us physically and emotionally.

The program is one in Ireland which is instituting a basic income for artists. The program began as a result of the pandemic because many artists needed financial help. From that came a pilot program and now that the results are in the program will become permanent in 2026. Not only did giving a basic income to artists increase their income, it increased their income from practicing their art, thus decreasing the need for income from other sources and also decreasing their reliance on social services. What happened they discovered is that the economy benefited as well as the individual artist. The program includes not only visual artists, but musicians and other performers, composers, writers, movie makers and architects. The issues are not criticism of the program but who can be counted as an artist, as well as debate around how to select the artists to be chosen whether they should be selected based on need, merit or randomness.

For us the answer is plain, let’s expose ourselves to art!

*reposted from GGID page

Those of us who love trees don’t need books and studies to be told what marvels of nature they are. Still there is a warm and penetrating sensation of delight when what one knew all along is there for all to see.

One such instance is a book recognizing the genius of trees.  Way back during the beginning of what we call evolution, what became trees, probably algae, learned to control all the elements around them, water, sun, air, fire, the ground beneath them, and did so one by one. Harriet Rix who’s a British tree consultant explains how this happened, how trees learned to use UV light, and survive.  Her new book shares how much we owe to trees including the many ways they have been part of planetary life and part of our lives.  “The Genius of Trees: How They Mastered the Elements and Shaped the World,”  doesn’t address how to speak to trees or any topics one might associate with  new research on this subject, it just shares  as this title tells us, what she calls the genius of trees,  genius because of the way trees in evolving have been able to burrow themselves into our lives and in doing so managed to essentially conquer whatever obstacles came their way. Her bottom line is simple. We need trees.

But what makes trees remarkable doesn’t stop with Rix’s book.  Another instance come from an article the NYT recently published e about the results of a comprehensive study by a team of scientists. What they reveal is that a tree is a complex ecosystem, a still largely unexplored microbial diversity, maybe home to a trillion microbial cells. And what’s more, the tree’s microbial cells not only contribute to its survival but to ours as well.  

Yes indeed we need trees.

+reposted from the GGID page

James S. Fishkin is only well known in certain circles, but his work with deliberative democracy is something many of us ought to familiarize ourselves with simply because it is something we very much need in our polarized society. It may not be the answer, but it holds a hope to bring our various factions closer. Essentially it involves talking to each other. It means not getting information from social media, but from people, it means not holding on to opinions that stem from the bubbles of social media platforms but discussing them in person.

Such an experiment was conducted in the summer in Philadelphia where a group of people over a 4-day period attended sessions, were presented with information and discussed issues together. At the end, many had changed their minds, a lot more than had been thought. People may be staunch in their views and yet those views are not as fixed as many think, they can be moved.  The experiment in Philadelphia as other such experiments in other cities show that what people think when exposed to information they can discuss in person with others can and do shift.

 James S. Fishkin, among other titles is the director of the Deliberative Democracy Lab at Stanford University. Yes, he does represent the often-crucial work universities are involved in, but what is also relevant to us at this time in our history is that what he does, and others do with him, points to one of the tools needed to help us overcome the current impasse US democracy finds itself in.