Picasso once said, “We are all born artists. We just grow out of it.”
What does that imply? Picasso was a smart guy, but he was abstract in his methodological expressions. It implies that we are all once exceptionally original in our premature ideas. We were once naive to the world; we had no clue what ‘wrong’ meant. And we’d express ourselves without any barrier. However, throughout life, we slowly comprehend and extend the definition of ‘wrong’, and we learn that there are certainly many wrong things. Things that society just won’t accept. The question is: Is it correct to remain artists? Is it correct to attempt to maintain your mindset that you originally had?
Let’s examine the two polar standpoints first.
We were all born as immature babies. As small vulnerable beings, we lack valuable experience. And once we get older, we learn from our elders – what’s right and what’s wrong; what’s annoying and pleasing; what we should and should not do. We slowly learn from our mistakes, and develop a better self. We enrich our understanding of this rich universe around us by learning from our reflections, not by challenging what had been there. Sure, we can pull from our constantly expanding bank of knowledge to redefine the world, but that’s all due to the result of the outstanding maturity we’ve developed over time. Thus, we should not keep our original mindset from birth, for our minds should always be eligible for growth.
On a completely different perspective, perhaps our mindset should be preserved to avoid the evils of society. Society only wants you to do what society wants. They mold you to become obedient and to shut up because it annoys them. Sure, we learn information the society instructs, but we are never given the chance to come up with something creative and original if we were always open to be influenced. If we always do what is expected, then we won’t be ready to make mistakes, and therefore we won’t be able to come up with something unprecedented. We’d surely become robots if all the same stuff influence us. Religion, science, clothing styles. Why aren’t those ideas challenged? Because they are unwritten rules set by society?
I agree that both of these social standpoints are a bit extreme. What should be the humanistic idea? In my opinion, the characters of a leader are incredibly impertinent in today’s society; we need to have a authoritative presence in order to be influential. However, we need to also be a bit reserved and open for other people because our haughty ideas are inevitably flawed at time, and we have to rely on other people. Sure, individualism is good, but it would be a cure all if individualism can be incorporated into the labyrinth of society.