THROWBACK BLOG # 1 Considering the Source: Which Contributes Most to the Well-being of Society - Science or Art?

Originally published November 9, 2010

One of the queries in The Old Curmudgeon’s Book of Questions, my Internet series of VidBits on Strike.TV
is:

“Why do we keep asking the opinion of the man in the street? If he knew anything he wouldn’t be in the damn street!”




Recently I came across some information in a public survey that confirmed my Old Curmudgeon’s


jaundiced view of the man in the street. It was in last year’s Pew Research Center for The People & The Press survey of the public’s attitude towards science, although it was a question that encompassed artists that caught my attention.

The public was asked whether certain professions contribute “a lot” to society’s well-being.

Seventy percent of the public thought scientists did,




which was close to their opinion on members of the military (84%),

teachers (77%),




and medical doctors (69%),




whereas only thirty-one percent of the public thought artists did,






just above lawyers (23%)



and business executives (21%).




Although I was pleased to see scientists listed among those that a majority of people think contribute a lot to the well-being of society, I am skeptical whether they truly know what they are talking about. I was dismayed to see that only thirty-one percent of the public believe that artists contribute to the well-being of society despite their lives being made at least slightly better, and at least slightly more tolerable every day, because of the work of artists.


Let’s take scientists first. Although I, had I been asked, would have enthusiastically stated that I believed scientists contribute a lot to the well-being of society, I have to wonder how most of the respondents interpreted the question. Were they thinking of scientists who do pure research, who go off on quests for knowledge simply for the sake of that knowledge,



whether it is the quantum structure of the universe, the family tree of Homo sapiens, the roots of consciousness, or the origin of life? Or were they thinking of those scientists—and the technologists and engineers who follow them—who do applied science looking to apply their science to something nicely practical and potentially profitable,






from medical techniques and drugs to new sources of clean energy, to ever more powerful computers, ever more versatile cell phones, ever more realistically violent video games, not to mention E-readers that actually make you think you are reading an old-fashioned book made of paper?


I would be willing to bet it was the latter. For those are tangible items that not only everyone can see, almost everyone has arguably benefited from. But had the public been asked if the research that physicists are now doing at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,





or the data to be gather from Curiosity, the next Mars probe,





or the knowledge that has been pouring in from the Hubble Telescope,






or the discovery of strange new species at the bottom of the oceans,





if the public had been asked if any of this contributes to the well-being of society, does anyone really think the polling would have reached seventy percent? This fruit from the tree of knowledge may inspire awe and wonder, but does anyone really think it makes our days better and brighter? Well, I do because I believe that it is inherent in Homo sapiens to quest after knowledge, and if that quest isn’t heeded the well-being of all eventually suffers. I just don’t believe most of the public believes this. I may just be an effete elitist, of course, and I welcome counter-arguments, but I believe that when most people think of well-being they think of tangible benefits, things they can touch and see and assess; not benefits that are more, for lack of a better word, ethereal. Which may be why artists only polled thirty-one percent.


If I may be so bold to define Art as the self-expression of a Homo sapiens, would it then be logical to assume that many people see Art as a self-indulgence, something done essentially for the benefit of the individual artist, and not for society?

But to make such an assumption you really have to underline the capital A in Art and further assume that the public considers Art as being only that which has been defined as “High” or “Fine” or “Profound.” In this view Art is that which the artists, and some critics, may consider rarefied, but which is not really liked or understood by the masses. The masses, far from being ashamed by this, often take pride in it, making them reverse effete elitists.





My definition of Art, that it is the self-expression of a Homo sapiens, though, gives it a rather broad scope, taking in everything from the most esoteric modern composer of note-less music to that guy in the bar who can burp out the first two bars of any song you care to name.




His art may not be profound, and certainly may not contribute to the well-being of society, but it cannot be denied that it is an expression of his self. Even if we back up from the burping troubadour (and who wouldn’t want to?) my definition still assumes that artists are not just people who put cows in formaldehyde, or write music you can’t hum, novels without plots and poetry a stunningly small amount of Americans read, but also those people whose genuine and sincere expressions create works that have been both celebrated and damned as “popular art.” From the best—and we always want to discuss the best—in film, television, music, books, and theater to the finest work of architects designing buildings of stunning grace and beauty or of regional craft fair jewelry designers who make pieces that call out to you and say, “That’s me!” or “That’s my lover!” or “That’s my friend!”—such art pervades our daily lives and is often what we most enthusiastically share with others.


If it is inherent in Homo sapiens to quest for knowledge it is also inherent in Homo sapiens to express themselves, and those expressions can be in words, music, movement, stone, wood, paint or light. If it is not in our individual abilities to express ourselves well, with subtlety and finely honed craft, we still, all of us, have the desire to do so. It is wonderful when artists express, for example, stories that speak for us and to us, in essence giving them to us as our own if we want them. If cut off from that, if we could not share the expressions of artists, and share them with others, would we not become frustrated, our emotions thrown into chaos, our view of the world surrounding us squeezed into a narrow aperture letting in little light? And would not that be detrimental to our well-being?

Scientists and artists both contribute “a lot” to society’s well-being, because their work—the quest for knowledge and the expression of selves—are essential human endeavors. If those endeavors were not carried out we would be less human and our society would eventually become diminished.


If the Old Curmudgeon in me is right, that the public—atavistically known as the man in the street—places the contributions of scientists to the well-being of society far above that of artists because they overvalue the popular in science and take for granted the popular in art, then that is sad. If they knew the true value of both I believe the percentages would have been much closer—and both very high.


But what do I know? I’m just the Effete Elitist in the Street.

‘Big Bang Theory’ is an evolved portrayal of scientists (and fanboy funny!)

Here's another essay that I wrote for the L.A. Times, first appearing in this form on Geoff Boucher's HERO COMPLEX blog, and later in the January 1, 2010 print edition. if you go to the original at http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2009/12/14/big-bang-theory-2/ you can get some great illustrations and video that Geoff added. 

Dec. 14, 2009:


GUEST ESSAY: AN APPRECIATION OF “THE BIG BANG THEORY” 


Writer Steven Paul Leiva drops by the Hero Complex today with an appreciation of the CBS series “The Big Bang Theory,” which airs Monday nights at 9:30 p.m. (8:30 central). Leiva also wrote a Hero Complex essay last year on “The Spirit” movie that could have been. 




Even in science fiction, scientists don’t often come off well. Take Frankenstein, for example, remembering, of course, that he was not the monster but rather the creator of the monster, and thus considered by many to be, well, a monster. It’s been 191 years since Mary Shelley’s tale was published but since then, stories written for a whole range of media and genres have featured a plethora of out-of-control lab geniuses (those mad scientists!) who are always mucking around with the laws of nature, creating mutants and doomsday weapons and unleashing man-made plagues, etc. All of it may be nothing more than fever-dream metaphors for what scientists really do — discover the data that generate worldviews that disconcert a large number of people – Copernicus and Galileo telling us that we are not the center of the universe; Darwin telling us that we are not the center of life; the neurobiologists that now may be telling us that we are not even the center of ourselves. 


Damn scientists, they sure know how to darken the sunny celebrations of human self-centeredness. 


Of course, not all scientists portrayed in media have been mad. Some have just been cold, almost inhuman (or half-inhuman in the case of “Star Trek’s” Mr. Spock), near-robotic creatures uncomfortable with anything that cannot be reduced to an equation. Temperance Brennan in “Bones” is a good current example. A forensic anthropologist, Brennan uses her superior smarts and splendid skills not in the pursuit of expanding human knowledge, but in the pursuit of clues. She is portrayed as so obsessed with rational observation — leaving her emotions out of it — that she can’t see that her partner, the all-heart FBI agent Seeley Booth, is crazy in love with her. She is an indirect descendent of Sherlock Holmes (a fine amateur scientist), both in her smarts and in her lack of warm-and-fuzzy social skills. Walter Bishop of “Fringe” is another example — and he comes with the added benefit of also being an actual verifiably mad scientist. 


No, it has not gone well for scientists in their fictional representation in books, film, television, and now even on the Internet (did you see “Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog”?) Scientists are portrayed as stark raving mad, socially inept or just goofy. This is pretty bad for a subsection of people that have probably had a larger impact on humanity than any other career you could name. Their job description isn’t so bad either: solving the mysteries of the universe. 


But then maybe that’s the problem. To solve or even attempt to solve such mysteries, you have to be a whole lot smarter than most of us. And we humble folk don’t especially enjoy looking up to the elite — unless that status is defined by wealth, glamor and sex and comes with the potential of warping into scandal. So rather than thinking that scientists are better than us, we like to think that they are crazy, evil and/or wildly eccentric. 


In the face of all that, I would like to put forth the modest suggestion that scientists, as a group, are just as sane and socially capable as any other group of people. Which makes it a wry twist, I suppose, that I would also like to propose that the hit CBS sitcom “The Big Bang Theory” is the finest and best fictional portrayal of scientists in any current media — and a series that is carving out a spot for itself in the annals of television comedy. 


Not that this was Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady’s purpose in creating “The Big Bang Theory.” My guess is that their purpose was to create a traditional three-camera sitcom that would generate lots of hearty laughs and big ratings. They have accomplished both those goals, however, and have done so in an era when the sitcom is no longer king. “The Big Bang Theory” has the potential to become a true classic of TV comedy, but it stands apart from most traditional three-camera shows because of what it is not… 


“The Big Bang Theory” is not a family sitcom with a wise and knowing (or bumbling and oblivious) father, nor does it feature a single parent. It is not about East Coast friends who are beautiful or urban or beautifully urban. It does not focus on characters defined by their ethnic and/or social class. It is not about aliens or high school students or teachers, and it is not about doctors (not of the medical profession, at least). And it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, about Mr., Mrs., Miss or Ms. Middle Class, Middle America, Middlebrow — the kind of characters that a vast audience can (supposedly) most relate to most easily. 


What “The Big Bang Theory” is is a sitcom about scientists. Specifically, it’s about Leonard Hofstadter, an experimental physicist; Sheldon Cooper, a theoretical physicist; Howard Wolowitz, a spacecraft systems engineer; and Rajesh Koothrappali, a particle astrophysicist. They are not adventurously traveling through space (although I’m sure they wish they were), and they are not searching for clues to a murder. They are working scientists employed by Caltech, daily involved in theoretical, experimental and applied science. At least one of the four, Sheldon, is a certifiable genius; the other three possess superior intelligence and happen to be very good at their jobs. They are all mental giants. But the comic rub is, they are also — not meaning to be pejorative, just extending the metaphor — social midgets. They can wrestle with theoretical tangles but cannot pick up a girl in a bar. They can peer into the structure of the universe, but they can’t navigate simple social situations. 


And the scientists’ lack of social skills does not set them apart from humanity, it defines their humanity. 


Their lack of social skills comes not just from their mental superiority, but also from the fact that they are nerds — they collect comics books, adore video games and gobble up sci-fi and fantasy movies. They take no shame in this; no, they embrace it as their culture, a culture as complex, interesting, and worthy as any other culture on this planet (or any other planet, for that matter). Some might consider separating the fact that the four are scientists with vast mental resources from the fact that they are also culture nerds a useless distinction. But do we really think all scientists are nerds? Certainly all nerds are not scientists. Leonard, Sheldon, Howard and Rajesh are nerds more because of their ages — mid- to late 20s — and the era they have grown up in, not because of their lab coats. 


The show spends far more time showing them in nerd mode than in science settings; you’re more likely to see them at their favorite comic book store on new-release day than to watch them conduct experiments or pore over data because, well, the other option might be mind-numbingly dull. But their career pursuits are shown in subtle ways during brief moments, which is when we see their passion for their work, the thrill and pride they display when they apply their finely honed minds to the latest challenge. If nerdism is their culture, science is their tribe. 


The writers of the series have sculpted full portraits of their characters and polished them with a giddy exploitation of their human frailties as well as compassion for them. Leonard, Sheldon, Howard and Rajesh have become completely relatable to the large audience; some of the audience, of course, may connect to the nerd factor, but certainly not all. The viewers may be much like the character Penny, the desirable, decidedly non-nerdy and non-intellectual neighbor who, surprising even herself, becomes Leonard’s lover. Penny is the stand-in for the audience; she is perplexed by the scientists’ high IQs and alternately amused and appalled by their lack of social graces. Penny is won over, though, by the sincerity of their nerddom and by their ego-fragility. She is essentially the Wendy to these Lost Boys. 


“The Big Bang Theory” has been blessed with five actors with superb comedy instincts. Jim Parsons (Sheldon) has a bit of Jack Benny about him — not in character, but in understanding the humor in silence. He plays Sheldon’s arrogance in his intelligence for the laughs it can engender, but with the dignity of the understanding that if a man is a genius, he’s probably smart enough to know it. Johnny Galecki (Leonard) is all frustrated sweetness with some vulnerability, and while he’s far less arrogant that Sheldon he is also unapologetic about his intelligence. Kaley Cuoco (Penny) beautifully plays wise-but-dim, which may be a new comedic category. Simon Helberg (Howard) delivers a line like a great musician can play a violin, and Kunal Nayyar (Rajesh) tosses laughter bombs with precision. It’s an incredible ensemble, and in my opinion, ranks with the best in television history. 


The writers and actors of “The Big Bang Theory” have combined their talents to portray scientists as they actually are — human. If this can help bring the generalized view of scientists out of the realm of misguided and misunderstood prejudice, the show can be a boon for all humankind. If not? Well, at least it’s an experiment in laughter, and that’s no small thing.