Conflict between art and hyper-centralized power

Art is a form of communication which creates and shares highly subjective personal perspectives. It is created and shared by all individuals. Personal subjective perspectives are necessary for development of consciousness.

Hyper-centralized power promotes only a single perspective, narrative, idea, plan. This perspective is simplified and generalized so it is accepted by the majority of the system members with minimal conflict. Art is in direct conflict with hyper-centralized power perspective because it creates complex, nuanced, and unlimited perspectives.

Hyper-centralized power manages the conflict with art using following strategies:
– Moving the focus from the art purpose – sharing of perspectives – to art production process (technology, technique),
– Hiding the true perspectives offered by art by changing the meaning and presentation of art,
– Expanding its perspective to include some art as a way to reduce the conflict,
– Expanding hyper-centralization in the realm of art by sharing the power with few artists.

Art can protect itself using following strategies:
– Prioritize the purpose of subjective perspective sharing,
– Educate the audience about the subjective perspectives and their unavoidable conflict with hyper-centralized power perspective,
– Avoiding centralization by constantly building inclusive supportive decentralized open systems.

As hyper-centralize power grows, art will be further reduced in favor of consumption of a single simple generalized perspective and not for production of many personal subjective perspectives. Art will co-exist with hyper-centralized power but in an extremely diminished and centralized form used to further empower the hyper-centralized decision makers. It will not offer necessary perspectives for growth of individual members which will reduce the consciousness of individuals. This reduction and lack of development might be covert due to the use of remaining art surrogate which minimizes the conflict.

Diversity of representatives is in conflict with openness

Diversity of decision makers in a centralized system is not a relevant step towards the equality. It implies indirect limited representation of the specific groups of people by the decision makers who come from those groups of people. However it offers no guarantee that knowledge, wisdom, and decisions of the members of those groups will be included in the centralized power decision process.

Representation as a system of collective decision making is using diversity to extend its centralized distribution of power. Representation, diversity, and openness are many cases placed in conflict because representation and diversity can maintain centralization as is, while openness changes it.

Human development roadmap

The ultimate goal of human development are equality and immortality.

Both equality and immortality represent absolute safety of an individual. Equality is safety as a member of a system in social and economical aspect. Immortality is safety from natural harm, including injury, illness, aging. All humans want these two safeties. Immortality is the ultimate goal of technology development and equality is the ultimate goal of power development.

It is unclear at which order immortality and equality should be reached – which should be first. Historically technological resources have increased and decreased inequality, and greater equality has also increased and decreased technological development. If immortality is reached before equality it will surely offer more time for the development of equality.

To reach equality following gradual steps must be made:
Step 1) Openness – some systems allow some influence,
Step 2) Participation – some systems allow some participation,
Step 3) Democracy – all systems allow full participation.

I use the word democracy in its true meaning – full direct democracy accessible to all members of all systems, unfragmented in smaller systems. Only once democracy is reached, then equality can be achieved. It is impossible to have equality if all members of all systems are denied even the slightest participation rights.

Therefore, the ideal human development roadmap is:
Step 1) Openness,
Step 2) Participation,
Step 3) Democracy,
Step 4) Equality,
Step 5) Immortality.


One of the challenges of the human conditions is to find our own voice. Finding a voice is a way we communicate with subjects – ourselves, people close to us, and the society. Our voice is different from our identity. It is a form of communication – a visual, a sound, speech, an action. Our voice is confirmed by a change it causes, it is a method by which we exercise our power. Our voice defines our identity.

We all have a voice. An engineer designs blueprints, a rapist is violent, an artist makes art, a parent screams, a nurse speaks kindly. We can have many voices for different goals and subjects. Every voice offers an opportunity for our development. Each change created by a voice is a reward. We develop in a direction for which we are most rewarded.

Without a voice we are isolated from ourselves, from those around us, and from the society, and our development regresses. Being denied a voice means that we are denied power. We can be denied a voice directly or indirectly. While direct denial is an obvious form of violence, indirect is more covert and its definition is changing with culture and technology.

Because our voice is part of a human condition, it is important that any system facilitates development of voices and that it eliminates their denial. If a system deliberately or accidentally denies voices it will regress.