Imperfezione e perfezione nella cultura, nella scienza, nell’arte, nella ricerca
10.6092/issn.1973-9494/12785
application/pdf
1973-9494
12785
en
Mauro Mantovani
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0
Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage
Imperfection and Perfection in Culture, Science, Art, Research
Text.Serial.Journal
https://conservation-science.unibo.it/
20
Editorial
2021-05-13
2021-04-27
2021-05-13
2021-05-13
19-29
CSCH
Mauro Mantovani
2020
10.6092/issn.1973-9494/12785
19
Magnifico Rettore Università Pontificia Salesiana, Roma, Italia
1973-9494
en
29
Imperfection and Perfection in Culture, Science, Art, Research
https://conservation-science.unibo.it/article/download/12785/12502
20
E    DITORIAL


Imperfection and perfection in culture, science, art, research
Salvatore Lorusso
Foreign Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

Mauro Mantovani
Rector of the Salesian Pontifical University, Rome, Italy



   Culture unites

    “Culture unites” may refer to a collective call in times of need: but, in truth, it under-
lines the initiative of a project whose aims and objectives are to protect and enhance
the immense and prestigious heritage in Italy and in other countries.
    Ours is a voice that urges commitment to the value of culture as a means for making
informed, reasoned and reasonable choices, and also builders of the future for the new
generations in this time of ‘educational emergency’. And thinking, naturally, about edu-
cation not only in terms of teaching, but as a form of training that is acquired within a
context of experience and competence through work and life, in view of a ‘human flour-
ishing’ of the person considered as an individual and as the living cell in a community.
    We often talk about beauty and, in this regard, it would be desirable to think and act
so that beauty is not separated from the truth, as the classical doctrine of the transcen-
dentals of being teaches us: the only response to widespread ignorance, neglect and
indifference is represented in fact, in training, understood as education and competence,
and in culture, understood as personal knowledge combined with wisdom. Culture is a
value to be promoted and strengthened, an integration between different identities, a
bridge that unites individuals, communities, countries and, as such, an extraordinary
stimulus for the economy and for international relations.
    And, underlining that Italy has the greatest concentration of cultural heritage in the
world and that culture is not a luxury asset, it represents a long-term investment that
creates wealth, authentic sustainability and value: indeed, by investing in education and
training, protection and enhancement, culture generates positive returns aimed at pre-
serving the cultural assets themselves, with equally significant repercussions from a
social and economic point of view for the same territory in which they are located.
    Art, understood in all its forms, opens up to a wider perspective, brings beauty to
places of marginalization and suffering, provides a means for personal and collective
benefit and helps to envisage a future without conflict or war, which we owe to future
generations.
    This is why it is important and necessary to transform the territory, making the cul-
tural peripheries more dynamic and fully taking up the challenges that come from ‘ur-
ban cultures’ - as Pope Francis invites us to do in numbers 71-75 of the Apostolic Ex-
hortation Evangelii Gaudium – “Cities are multicultural; in the larger cities, a connective
network is found in which groups of people share a common imagination and dreams
about life, and new human interactions arise, new cultures, invisible cities. Various sub-
                                       cultures exist side by side, and often practise segregation and violence. [...] On the one
                                       hand, there are people who have the means needed to develop their personal and
                                       family lives, but there are also many ‘non-citizens’, ‘half citizens’ and ‘urban remnants’.
                                       Cities create a sort of permanent ambivalence because, while they offer their residents
                                       countless possibilities, they also present many people with any number of obstacles to
                                       the full development of their lives” (n. 74).
                                           We are basically called upon to participate in developing a project of cities and
                                       communities “on a human scale”, and this is undoubtedly a historic moment in which
                                       concrete actions are needed when there is no vision of the future and a continuing
                                       stagnant present.
                                           Culture is a living organism that must be nourished with conviction, with continuity,
                                       and with wisdom.


                                          For a technology that is more human and a way of thinking that is more critical

                                            It is indisputable that in the cultural sphere this conviction, continuity and wisdom
                                       must proceed in the various branches of science and art, by taking into account the
                                       importance of prevailing and advanced technology and, at the same time, reconciling
                                       those degrees of imperfection and / or perfection to be corrected together with the
                                       critical thinking of the operators and users.
                                            In this regard, the intuition of the English writer and philosopher Aldous Huxley,
                                       author of a dystopian narrative in which he describes a near future that presents nega-
                                       tive social and technological situations and developments, is extremely relevant: the
                                       tiring ‘grip’ on reality (observing nature, reflecting on documentary materials, books) is
                                       the only resistance to the dictatorship of apparent pleasure, in other words, of the ‘ev-
                                       erything immediately and easily’ to which one is instinctively drawn, i.e. the search for
                                       sensations replaces the search for sense.
                                            How much time do we spend observing nature and how much the screen, under-
                                       stood as everything that appears and affects us sensorially? Our grip on reality de-
                                       pends on nature (observation) and culture (reflection), without which we are prisoners
                                       of an illusion, so to be happy we must exclude rather than understand, enjoy rather
                                       than rejoice, free ourselves rather than commit ourselves, only to discover we are al-
                                       ways dissatisfied. In his work “New World”, Huxley eliminates this inevitable unease of
                                       the soul by presenting an alternative, “soma”, a drug distributed in moments of crisis and
S. Lorusso, M. Mantovani - Editorial




                                       social disorder. But it is definitely not to be considered a solution and / or an alternative
                                       to the established intents and objectives in our life.
                                            And here, the power of our critical thinking intervenes, also aimed at a more human
                                       technology, at a necessary passage – Pope Francis in his Encyclical Laudato si’ is not
                                       afraid to use the expression “courageous cultural revolution” – from the “technocratic
                                       paradigm” to a “ wisdom paradigm” into which fit, in the right order and respective cor-
                                       relation, wisdom, science and technology.
                                            A few years ago, the American writer and naturalist, Edward O. Wilson, the founder
                                       of sociobiology, was asked if humans would be able to solve the crises of the following
                                       century. The answer was: “Yes, if we are honest with ourselves and intelligent. We
                                       have paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and extremely sophisticated technolo-
                                       gies: this is the real problem of humanity”. Several years have passed and, although
                                       the ancestral impulses of our brain have evolved, the powers of technology have grown
                                       dramatically. Our intent is limited in the face of the temptations of technology, compro-


                               20
mising not only our privacy, but also our capacity for collective action. This is also be-
cause our brain is not programmed to manage the awareness of the suffering of the
planet. The news we read online confronts us with the pain and cruelty present in the
world and leads us to a kind of acquired helplessness: a technology that gives us what
may almost be considered omniscience without any qualms, is inhuman.
     In this regard, it would appear that in developed countries and especially in emerg-
ing economies, access to technology seems to change life for the better, whereas it
can harm when it is not regulated. Technology has the power to transform society,
which needs it, if it is inclusive. And, with the aim of a more responsible, inclusive and
sustainable capitalism, trust will become even more crucial with the spread of new
technologies, such as “artificial intelligence”, which will be more important than “fire”
and “electricity”, with the potential to disrupt life and health, as well as science and art.
It is essential to maintain a sense of balance in all this, which comes from a sanely
critical thought halfway between optimistic enthusiasm and apocalyptic defeatism.
     At this point, we must not forget that we are the only species with the awareness to
understand the difference, the distance between our brain and the technology we use,
which means that we have the ability to reverse this trend. However, we must ask our-
selves if we are equal to the task, in other words, able to look within ourselves and use
this wisdom to develop a technology that is new and humane, as the American psy-
chologist, and co-founder and executive director of the Center for Humane Technology,
Tristan Harris, points out.
     To “create” humane technology, we need to think deeply about our nature and, to
do so, it is not enough just to talk about privacy. It is a profoundly spiritual approach:
we must understand our natural strengths, including critical thinking and self-aware-
ness, thus reconciling ourselves to technology. Critical thinking and self-awareness
must lead to admitting a state of “imperfection” which, through a process of evolution,
must lead to the truth in each of us, as well as in science and art.




                                                                                                     Conservation science in Cultural Heritage
   Imperfection, evolution and truth in research

    According to the evolutionist Telmo Piovani, author of the work “Imperfection. A
natural story”, it is possible to affirm that humility can become a talent for imperfection
because it is constantly evolving.
    Referring to the world of research, it has been experimented, believed and ac-
knowledged that evolution does not adhere to pre-established standards, but explores
what is possible: that is why imperfection is everywhere.
    Besides, today, the vice of “totalizing perfection” takes on the appearance of group
conformity. Positions and beliefs, which are by no means neutral, are designed on the
basis of precise preconceptions that aim to create canons of consensus, self-convic-
tion and communities based on prejudice, so that each community of believers has a
profile that can be exploited commercially, with the aggravating factor that everything
is cloaked in an illusory aura of freedom and democracy. This feeds the need for the
human mind to shut itself up in protective communities. Instead, “shared and conver-
gent studying” is becoming increasingly necessary, precisely because it is increasingly
approved (in the most etymological sense of the term) and felt emotionally within an
increasingly enlarged and inclusive scientific community and is as far as possible con-
fluent and concurrent (above all, in the sense of movement and finalization towards a
common goal, just as the meaning of the word “university” suggests).


                                                                                                21
                                            It is equally true, on the other hand, that to be imperfect is natural and, at the same
                                       time, causes suffering, anxiety and discomfort. However, if we learned to critically un-
                                       dermine socially induced stereotypes of perfection and prejudices, we would be able
                                       to eliminate a contextual cause that aggravates that discomfort, and we would not
                                       have the problem of undue external pressures and the awareness of being different.
                                       Indeed, evolution not only feeds on individual diversity, but also takes advantage of the
                                       fact that each of us is made up of multiple, stratified and contradictory diversities. The
                                       secret of success as human beings, and even more so in scientific research, is to have
                                       made of fragility, a strength. Cultural and technological evolution would not exist if our
                                       ancestors had not been able to execute and protect what they in turn have handed
                                       down to us.
                                            And in research, it is not only a duty, but a right to make a claim against prejudices,
                                       it is something more profound: it is the expression of irrepressible individual diversity.
                                       The evolutionary reasons for that imperfection are the same as those that make us
                                       human and keep us close to the truth, and even more so, close to the scientific truth.


                                          One ‘common belief’ for a single judgement

                                           Why believe in your own conviction, why be certain, confident, have no doubt or
                                       perplexity, rather than discussing and comparing your opinion and position to validate
                                       your idea, an idea that has become your creed over time or, on the contrary, refute it
                                       by recognizing the validity of the opinion of others and their consequent judgment?
                                           The real problem is that one is loyal – in some ways, with good reason – to the
                                       world that has shaped them and consequently built their own cultural world, often be-
                                       coming too “intimistic” in meaning and value, and fearing that if it comes under exami-
                                       nation, it may collapse.
                                           It is equally true, however, that a further eventuality can arise if, humbly, courageous-
                                       ly and proudly, we put ourselves in a contradictory situation, opening the path to a pos-
                                       sible synergy of two different positions which, however, are in need of common certain-
                                       ties. This is a greater achievement, because it confirms the idea of a methodological
                                       path which, as it is different, because it derives from the other world of training which
                                       has also become private, allowing one to integrate, complete and ascertain ‘one’s
                                       creed’. It has thus become the “common belief”, making the conclusive judgment, reli-
                                       able and unequivocal.
S. Lorusso, M. Mantovani - Editorial




                                           Considering the way the past is presented in the present, revised, re-examined and
                                       projected into the future, what is reported is what is found in life as well as in science,
                                       art and research. They are simple, courageous and effective arguments and reflec-
                                       tions which, in expressing a kind of Epicurean thought, it may be said, that if we have
                                       arrived at the aforementioned “common belief” and are projected into the future:
                                       “Wouldn’t it be better to learn to enjoy the moment, knowing how fulfilling is our condi-
                                       tion, which, by responding to the uniqueness of a judgment we are an integral part of,
                                       is attributable - one can rightly say - to an indisputable scientific truth?”.

                                          The evaluation of the work of art

                                           The philosopher and rhetorician Protagoras, who is considered the father of soph-
                                       istry and lived between about 490 and 420 BC., wrote in his work Truth, “Man is a
                                       measure of all things”. Whoever claims to possess an absolute truth is not in the right,


                                22
because everyone must be able to express their ideas, which are to be considered all
legitimate: therefore, everyone is a measure of their own judgments and experiences
and, for this, must be allowed to express them.
    The above can be applied to the present time, and as history has already taught us
in such cases, there is generally confrontation and recourse to enforcement. But it is
also true that other criteria can be found to facilitate “confrontation” and find “agree-
ment”, or at least have tried to do so, “after due consideration”. The priority, when pos-
sible, is not to establish who is right, but how to solve the problem and resolve differ-
ences by establishing, in the absence of absolute values, the principles on which to
base a comparison and, therefore, an agreement.
    At this point the question arises: “What is the motive that made us follow a path
whereby, by virtue of critical thinking and self-awareness, a process of evolution can
determine the transition from a state of imperfection to a state of perfection?”
    In the context of art, experience was acquired, and it evolved through the years: the
univocal subjective evaluation of an artefact of a historical, stylistic, aesthetic, icono-
graphic nature, examined in relation to its attribution and authentication, as well as
from a historical-technical perspective came to be accepted. But in spite of its unques-
tionable validity and scientific significance, it was painfully acknowledged that, as men-
tioned earlier, it was the result of a “vice of totalizing perfection”.
    In reality, such an evaluation could neither be synonymous with perfection nor be
considered totalizing. It was “not perfect” because, although attributable to a judgment
deriving from undisputed experience and skill, it was nevertheless subjective and the
result of human faculties and, as such, susceptible to a judgement that was scientifi-
cally “not perfect”. The meaning underlined by the term “not perfect”, is that scientifi-
cally, it does not respond to sensitivity, specificity, repeatability and reproducibility: these
are the precise characteristics that are not reflected in the subjective evaluation and
therefore, not reflected in the corresponding judgment.
    It follows that this type of evaluation cannot be considered “totalizing” but needs




                                                                                                        Conservation science in Cultural Heritage
to be compared and completed with an objective or diagnostic-analytical evaluation
based on the use of innovative and reliable technologies that satisfy the above char-
acteristics.
    In doing so, by “separating the stereotypes of socially induced perfection from the
appearance of group conformity and prejudices”, the integration of subjective and ob-
jective evaluations has led to not taking positions and not stating beliefs relating to
pre-established standards, but instead to considering evolutionary reasons or human
ones attributable to the concept of imperfection. This means we are fragile, but we are
convinced that this fragility is the force of an aseptic and completely scientific truth.
    And in the dialogue between knowledge, between people, and between different
generations, there is a real need for humility that is wise, and horizons that are broad-
er and more inclusive. We therefore need both imperfection and perfection in culture,
science, art and research, together with the repercussions they have in the field of
education and training. In an interesting speech given on 20 February 2020 in the
Vatican, in view of the “Global Compact on Education”, it is no coincidence that Pope
Francis remarked that: “One aspect of education is that it is an ecological movement:
one of the driving forces that aims at complete formation. Education that places the
person and his/her potential at its centre has the purpose of bringing him/her to knowl-
edge of self, of the common home in which the person lives, and above all of the dis-
covery of fraternity as a relationship that produces the multicultural composition of
humanity, a source of mutual enrichment”.


                                                                                                   23
