authority

So, authority. I often have the impression that in everyday conversations, we use words convinced we know perfectly well what each one means. Only a naive question about their meaning forces us to reflect, reach for a dictionary, and realize how unfounded this belief is. The Polish Dictionary defines authority as follows: someone's generally recognized seriousness, influence, significance, predominance, esteem. And under the entry "authoritative" we read: being an authority, certain, authoritative, credible, deserving of trust. It is said that we live in a serious crisis of authority. All authorities. I feel it is difficult to disagree with this diagnosis. Time and again, we witness the decline of someone's authority, and just as often, if not more often, we are persistently told that we are dealing with an authority because a group of people stands behind it. How often do we observe someone or another trying to overthrow someone else's authority in the name of noble intentions, only to immediately announce to the world that this supposedly cleansed place belongs to them.
At the same time, I have the overwhelming impression that each of us needs authority as a lasting point of reference, a point of appeal, a confirmation of our course of action, not to mention moral and ethical authority. It may be worth recalling how we reacted to the news of John Paul II's death. It was, of course, an expression of universal empathy and grief over the death of an eminent Pole, but perhaps also, somewhere deeper, an awareness that an authority that likely will not be around for a long time was passing away.
Hannah Arendt, for whom one of her interesting areas of reflection was social relations, not to say the sphere of politics, wrote: "authority... creates a natural hierarchy of people and institutions, one of which commands, the other obeys... while demanding unquestioning obedience."
It is not this understanding of authority that I wish to discuss today. I'm moving toward a concept of authority in which, while hierarchy exists, it arises naturally. It isn't imposed by someone who lays claim to it. I'm referring to a CHARACTER, a personality endowed with authority, as it were, from below. Such a situation becomes a determinant of the specific relationship of someone, or some group of people, to someone endowed with recognition, respect, and esteem for them, but really for their achievements, knowledge, attitude, or actions. It's a free gift, most often spontaneous, unexpected, and often not only not required by the recipient but even unwanted. Yet, despite this, a certain form of subordination, or almost submission, results from the conviction that submission is worthwhile. Such authority is a model of rational behavior, a model of social attitude; it's like a guardian of those values that still retain their high value, which at least some people would still like to defend. I want to apply what I've said so far to the teacher-student relationship.

Please spare me a few personal reflections. From the moment I received a job offer from Professor Ryszard Otręba many years ago, it took me a long time to feel strong enough for my first independent classes with students. It took me a long time to achieve a difficult-to-define state of inner readiness, a certain peace, but also the strength that allows me to "gently captivate my partner," capture their attention, and at the same time mobilize them. I had to recognize the characteristics of the process known as studies, studies at the Academy of Fine Arts. Most often, this process is associated with the transfer, if not the instilling, of a certain body of knowledge. But what should be done? Is it even possible for students to pursue knowledge themselves? Are we able to point out paths and inspire motivation so that those who follow them can discover new areas? It is sometimes said of someone that they "develop." Moreover, they do so themselves! How crucial is this moment in the development of a human being. How can we facilitate this? It seems obvious that the development of each of us depends on ourselves. It depends on whether we have the will for this development, whether we feel an "inner need," the motivation for hard work. Work that so often seems like an irrational effort, of dubious usefulness. However, whether we truly discover this will within ourselves depends solely on ourselves. How many are granted access to the desired knowledge and skills through solitary pursuit and persistent work? There are undoubtedly such among us, but for the most part, we expect support and stimulation. Experience and specific examples demonstrate this. I have the impression that this is especially true in art schools, where the term "master" refers to someone's creative, artistic, and also pedagogical achievements. These Teachers, of whom we speak in this way, have discovered, more or less consciously, a method for transmitting their knowledge and enthusiasm. A Master is a Teacher who introduces, initiates, and ultimately becomes a guide, a benevolent advisor, perhaps even a role model. This is how I would like to understand authority.