Bird-brains
Ahaha. Ahahahah. AHAHAHAHA:
Shigeru Watanabe (a psychologist at Keio University in Tokyo and possibly a man in league with the birds) set up a nefarious experiment. Watanabe showed children's paintings to pigeons; a panel of adults had deemed each work either good or bad. He trained the pigeons to distinguish between them with a system of tasty rewards. When the pigeons pecked correctly, he gave them some seed. Later, he presented 10 paintings to the birds they had never seen. Five of these paintings had been deemed good by humans, five bad. The pigeons recognized the good paintings as “good” twice as often as they recognized the “bad” paintings. In short, they came off as pretty good critics.
There's more, including references to Clement Greenberg, a man who must be spoken of in hallowed tones for no reason whatsoever.
The article ends with the right attitude - that the role of critics is in helping people appreciate things they might not otherwise - but I can't help thinking this is something of a pipe dream. After all, it's much more fun to decry other people's tastes; that or give up any pretence at caring and just be vile.
In short, skeptics are soppy
I have a tentative, late-Saturday-night hypothesis that people who describe themselves as skeptics are also likely to be hopeless romantics. For example, lots of skeptics are very fond of Love Actually, while cynics - the nemesis of any real skeptic - take great pains to point out they WEREN'T AFFECTED by that film's sentimental1 nature. One of the Mythbusters guys watches 'Medium' purely for its touching portrayal of a marriage. The S2 and S4 Doctor Who finales brought half the skeptical community to tears. Skeptical bloggers seem, to me, to declare their love for a partner far more often than the average political blogger.
I have no statistics, or even any links. It's more an impression than, you know, anything empirical. I am a rubbish scientist. This isn't going to stop me from extrapolating, though: maybe it's related to appreciation of wonder, or maybe skeptics have thought more about the interplay of reason and emotion. Maybe it's just a general sensitivity.
Or maybe I'm just talking rubbish. Potential problems:
- Confirmation bias - I'm only noticing those who are.
- I don't know enough skeptics...
- ...and those I follow online are part of a group that regularly inter-link, so could be similar people.
- It could be that many people are hopeless romantics, but skeptics are more likely to admit it.
- ...many, many more.
But I'm sticking with it anyway. I'll write a paper one day.
- I have another theory that explains critics' overuse of this word. You have to ask: who would want to go into a profession that spends all its time tearing down other people's creative endeavours? Answer: people with no empathy - let's say, mildly sociopathic. So when these people see displays of emotion, their lack of empathy means they think 'that's not real', so they scream 'sentimental' like it's a bad thing. When in fact they're usually talking about feelings (other) people actually have in the real world. This theory is unassailable kthxbai. [↩]
Imposter
I have a friend who thinks the same as me on many, many issues. But the one topic that's produced a few colourful arguments is summed up by today's xkcd. I say it's spot on, she says it's a total lie.
I'm right, obviously.
Friday sentence meme
I've been tagged by Martin.
- Pick up the nearest book.
- Open to page 123
- Find the fifth sentence.
- Post the next three sentences.
- Tag five people, and acknowledge who tagged you.
The nearest book right now is Photography in Print, and p123 is an excerpt from Charles Baudelaire's "The Salon of 1859". The sentences are ambiguous, but I think this is reasonable:
In matters of painting and sculpture, the present-day Credo of the sophisticated, above all in France (and I do not think that anyone at all would date to state the contrary), is this: "I believe in Nature, and I believe only in Nature (there are good reasons for that). I believe that Art is, and cannot be other than, the exact reproduction of Nature (a timid and dissident sect would wish to exclude the more repellent objects of nature, such as skeletons or chamber-pots). Thus an industry that could give us a result identical to Nature would be the absolute of art". A revengeful God has given ear to the prayers of this multitude. Daguerre was his Messiah.
Insufferable man.
Tagging (only if they're interested, of course): Lil, Paul, Abi, Skuds...um.
Initial thoughts on the ‘aesthetic hypothesis’
I'm a relativist when it comes to the arts. I'll argue artistic merits based on my personal preferences, and I think it's reasonable to logically analyse people's likes and dislikes, but at base it's all subjective. I've had heated disagreements with friends on this topic, but in my opinion all counterpoints eventually boil down to arguments from authority. These supposed authorities are regular targets of my ire, mainly those who set themselves up as 'official' critics, as I think they demean people for no good reason. However, my arty degree means I've been reading plenty of critical analyses over the last few months, and it's interesting to get into the details of how these people approach their subject. I think there's a lot of snobbery and building upon dodgy foundations, but occasionally somebody tries to justify the entire endeavour.
I've recently read a few essays by art critic Clive Bell, and found his writing refreshingly clear and direct. He meets the issue of subjectivity and the nature of 'art' head-on with his 'aesthetic hypothesis' - essentially an attempt to quantify artistic appreciation. Here's the rough idea as I understand it: he posits an 'aesthetic' emotion. This emotion is felt by capable people1 when looking at 'good' art, and is distinct from intellectual appreciation. Clive Bell doesn't claim this emotion is the same in everybody, but thinks it's invoked by a particular concept: significant form; this is essentially the arrangement of shapes on a surface. He uses this as a basis for differentiating between standards of art, as well as art and non-art.
I haven't read around this topic yet, but I'm not immediately convinced.
- I don't think it's scientifically plausible. What use is an aesthetic emotion? Obviously there are evolutionary by-products - we didn't need to play the piano on the savannah - but emotions have well-understood, evolutionarily-necessary purposes. An aesthetic emotion would seem to have a different nature than love, fear etc.. Sure, the brain has plenty of matter devoted to processing shapes and lines - face-recognition is a massive brain module - but this is universal, and it's dubious that only some people would have this 'leak over' into some kind of aesthetic response.
- I think modern psychology would have plenty of explanations for Mr Bell's emotions in front of a work of art. Analysing your own emotions is ridiculously difficult as we're all subject to massive psychological pressures. The power of suggestion, for example. Ever tried to make yourself feel something you don't? Weird things happen. I'm obviously not denying that people find particular arrangements of shapes pleasing, but to elevate this above an individual's neural network of associations seems dubious. I'm not sure how 'significant form' relates to non-visual arts, either.
- It's a conveniently untestable hypothesis, and reminds me of the religious tactic of 'I just feel God's presence', as if this is meant to be convincing.
- It's a bit magical. You can link it to science, or you can link it to some Artistic Otherworld where objective standards exist. Bit spiritual for me.
- Even if you grant the premise, the supposed artistic merits are a non sequitur. That some people feel an emotion when looking at certain things means nothing at all. Why should it? It's a naturalistic fallacy, as if 'the emotions' override the intellect, or indeed anything else. The person who feels nothing while looking at Cézanne is no less qualified to judge 'quality'2 than the aesthetically capable critic.
All of which could have been addressed and/or straw men - as I said, I'm just starting with this topic. I wanted to get my thoughts in order, though. I very much appreciate that this guy writes so clearly - I might disagree, but at least there's a Clive Bell-shaped hole in the wall.
Kick-ass entertainment
Via Pootergeek, Stephen King on visceral enjoyment:
It's easy — maybe too easy — to get caught up in serious discussions of good and bad, or to grade entertainment the way teachers grade school papers (as EW does, in case you missed it). Those discussions have their place, even though we know in our hearts that all such judgments — even of the humble art produced by the pop culture — are purely subjective. And as a veteran grade-grind in my youth, I have no problem with awarding A's, B's, and the occasional F to movies, books, and CDs (which is not to say I don't also have reservations about such drive-by critiques). But artsy/intellectual discussions have little to do with how I felt when I saw Rob Zombie's The Devil's Rejects. This movie made virtually no one's top 10 list except mine, but I'll never forget some exuberant (and possibly drunk) moviegoer in the front row shouting: ''This movie KICKS ASS!'' I felt the same way. Because it did.
and:
I'm not talking about guilty pleasures here. Guilty pleasures aren't even overrated; the idea is meaningless, an elitist concept invented by smarmy intellectuals with nothing better to do. I'm talking about the pure happiness that strikes like a lightning bolt out of George Strait's blue clear sky (another sacred occasion of joy for me).
It may not come as a complete surprise to hear I agree entirely 
'This kicks ass' is a surprisingly apt way of describing the moment the ideal song starts playing on the radio, or I realise from an expression alone that a plot is going to abruptly shift, and I never saw it coming. It's like he says: a feeling of pure happiness. For my brain chemistry, Heroes has it. Byron. The West Wing. 'Blue Picadilly' by The Feeling. Neal Stephenson. George Lange's photographs. Serenity. 'Addicted to Love' by Robert Palmer. Carl Sagan. Scrubs. Not that I'm a romantic or anything.
But there can be no more subjective a reaction, and I suppose that's why critics ignore it - you can't say whether any individual is going to react in such a way1 so it becomes irrelevant to a broad discussion. But as a result I think this kind of emotional response gets looked down upon, as if it's somehow less worthy than an intellectual examination. Which isn't to say that such discussions mean nothing, although I agree with SK that it's all subjective in the end, just that they have no business suggesting such feelings of happiness are something to feel proud of/guilty about.
- it's vaguely-related that Stumbling on Happiness apparently claims research results showing that others, no matter how much they differ from you, are far more effective at judging whether something will make you happy. I must read that book [↩]
‘More adult’ Harry Potter
The next person who says anything about the final Harry Potter being more 'adult' is going to get something thrown at them. What the hell is this supposed to mean? The storyline isn't that much more complex, and, yes, the themes are heavier and it's more emotional, but every kid of an age to read this type of book is going to have no trouble understanding it. Unless they're drawing the 'more adult' line at there maybe being the odd moment a 9-year-old won't understand, which there wasn't1 in the previous books, I don't know what they're getting at.
Are reviewers mistaking 'books about young people' for 'books that are incredibly simplistic'? And now the characters are older it's therefore 'more adult'? Wouldn't surprise me.
I'm not putting it down, by the way: I think there are many ways in which Harry Potter surpasses much of the literature aimed at adults, particularly in terms of complexity of storyline and emotional development. I sometimes think there's a sneering attitude towards literature aimed at children, and it's patronising in the extreme. "Look, here's a book aimed at children that I enjoy! It must therefore be 'more adult'." Gah.
Similarly, although not as annoying, 'darker'. We quickly found out that Harry's parents were murdered in cold blood, as I recall. I could possibly be won over on that one, though.
Ok, rant over.
- I think there was, actually [↩]
Defending Live Earth
Live Earth apparently didn't do so well in the TV ratings, and has taken some criticism for being hypocritical and inherently flawed. I think most of it's bogus.
I agree that the message was confused. There was no consistent Thing To Do - there was vague talk of a petition, lots of generic 'let the government know' messages, and a confusing array of text schemes - and plenty of the advice seemed (although actually wasn't) generically Green rather than specifically targeting global warming. This is a shame, but nevertheless I don't think anybody came away not understanding the point of the concert: global warming was front and centre.
Firstly, criticising the singers and celebrities involved because they're the worst offenders is silly. International rock bands cannot travel by public transport, and nobody would watch a concert without major stars, and the concerts were carbon neutral. That's presumably why the tickets were quite so expensive (£55 each!). I think this was done with 'carbon offsetting', which admittedly takes a while to have any effect. But will do eventually. It is nothing like so bad as you'd think from all the goddamn complaining. It's one of those arguments that clearly makes people feel clever, like saying 'how can global warming be real if they can't even predict next week's weather?', but is easy to refute. That's all your standard critical chaff. The major question is: why have the concerts in the first place?
A common complaint is that 'everybody already knows about global warming', so what's the point? Well, people trying to spread the word about global warming have a problem: there are a lot of global warming skeptics out there. They come in two flavours: those who think that it's all made up, and those who think there's still genuine scientific debate over the role of humanity in causing the problem. Most of the former are probably not going to have their minds changed, but they'll be affecting people who're on the fence - 'of course I know better' is always an appealing attitude. The latter are simply uninformed, and can hopefully have their minds changed by the evidence. It's also a strange thing to complain about, as the problem is nevertheless there - even if it weren't man-made, it would still be our problem. So how do the concerts help? I think they lend gravitas to the campaign.
For all the boring complaints of 'oh, yet another major concert', it's still big enough to be of interest to anyone interesting in modern music.Which is a lot of people, and most of them young. And there've only been three major concert in two years, so shut up. For many people global warming can seem distant and, if not unimportant, something that doesn't affect you. Intellectually we know it exists, but it's something that Other People deal with. A massive event such as Live Earth makes it personal: if you're a massive Metallica fan, and you see your favourite band suggesting that maybe this is worth a look, it'll seem more of a real thing. It's not that people didn't believe or know about it before, it's that this kind of thing makes it increase in stature: it's like following a trend on the internet, and one day seeing it on the evening news1. We knew it was cool before, but now it's a much larger Thing, and one that now seems to matter more. Of course many people knew this intellectually, and for some reason feel patronised when somebody tries to spread the word, but we're all affected by this kind of perception filter. Politicans, comedians, celebrities and massive rock stars all saying the same thing at nine major concerts worldwide is genuinely going to have an effect. So yes, I do think it's worthwhile.
Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I'm fooling myself: I was there, after all, and don't want to think it was a wasted event. But there's a general rule that the worthiness of a project is directly proportional to the cynicism that surrounds it. Global warming isn't a small thing: it's not a political issue that will fade in time. When the Live Intelletual Property Rights Concert is on at Wembley, I'll agree things have gone too far. But this is important stuff, and saying so shouldn't get you sneered at.
New Humanist recently ran a great (if weirdly short) interview with Richard Curtis2. He said (something like) 'Cynics Red Nose Day never raised any money or helped anyone', which is about right. So yeah, slag off Live Earth for all the usual reasons: vain celebrities, everybody knows already, it's naive, blah. But these people are trying to do something good, and undoubtedly succeeding, to an extent. More people are talking about global warming today than would have otherwise. What the hell good is complaining about it?
300 opinions
I'm going to have to see 300. I've heard plenty about it supposedly being racist, misogynistic and generally bad, but there've also been a fair number of people smiling wryly, bemused at massive over-analysis of something intended to be fun. It's been described as both pro and anti gay, pro and anti war, and pro and anti evolution (one of these is perhaps not entirely serious). With hype like that, I can't resist...I'd best hurry though, doubt it'll be around much longer.
Criticising Jane
With the new Jane Austen kind-of-a-biopic out at cinemas, the BBC has an article on the enduring appeal of her novels. It includes biting criticism such as:
"I think she betrays her time and I'm always gob smacked by what she ignored," says Celia Brayfield, author and lecturer at Brunel University. "She focused on such a narrow strain of human reality. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the Napoleonic War going on at the time when she was writing, she doesn't mention it.[...]"
I'm amazed at what critics can say with a straight face: JA writing romantic novels was a betrayal of her time. Maybe she has a point. If the new Harry Potter novel doesn't mention Iraq, I'll arrange a boycott. Later we have insights from the ex-editor of Nuts magazine. You might be temped to make assumptions about his views of women based on this, but don't be so hasty. He is, after all, an Austen fan:
"She is fun, dry, ironic - as funny as any male writer out there,"
Praise indeed.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
