Your above statement represents only one definition of art, and it is
one that I as an artist do not subscribe to. As an artist I am fully
responsible for my own visions, and they do not necessarily stem from
the particular society that I live in, and to accept those types of
boundaries would prevent me from exploring the transhumanist ideas I
am interested in. Moreover, I do not accept transhumanism itself as
a criterion for what I write--rather, my transhumanist orientation
frees my mind from barriers imposed by other ideologies. To that
extent, I consider myself a writer who happens to be transhumanist.
Natasha's comments in her post have highlighted my own discomfort
with signing onto any art movement. If she chooses to utilize her
artistic skills to further Extropianism, that is certainly a worthy
goal and one that I support. But I could never accept such a close
association between my personal philosophy and my art. My own
family history, one marked by escape from various repressive
homelands, serves as a constant reminder to be vigilent, even against
my own internal tendencies to impose an ideology.
I know that my comments are not as erudite as Sarah's or George's,
but mine come from the center of passion that produces the actual art
in question, and I would hope that they would be considered in that
light.
Sin,
Kathryn Aegis