When is a Horse not a Horse
I once set in on a discussion group about painting. I just happened to be in a local Borders book store—and with nothing better to do, I decided to join in. The group leader began to reverently talk about the beauty of art—and then demonstrated his meaning by showing us an example of his own work—a painting of a horse with all the technical prowess of a well-intentioned, but nominally gifted amateur. As the discussion moved around a circle of maybe eight or ten people—art, with all its potential meaning was elevated to reflect a deeper spiritual significance.
I have always been a bit an anarchist—not politically mind you—although I read Noam Chomsky intently in my younger days. I’ve never lobbed a bomb into a building in protest—but I have certainly thrown a rhetorical bomb or two....or thousand. After hearing enough of the usual—“art is priceless” and aren't we cool for thinking such non – mundane and meaningful stuff, I was compelled to offer a slightly different perspective. I said, “at best, art is representational—a two dimensional reflection of a three dimensional, living thing! No artistic rendering can begin to mimic the kind of complexity that is inherent in nature, except in the most basic way”. Their eyes focused on me like someone observing an alien life form—my words appearing to upset the rhythm of their self-congratulatory love fest. After a brief pause, the leader and horse renderer offered his own perspective. “I have seen many paintings of horses that are more beautiful than actual horses”! His meaning seemed to be that art, because it was aesthetically pleasing, was somehow more real than reality—and as such, more meaningful. Suggesting that, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, making the observer more beautiful as well.
Art by its nature has no single set rules, with no legislative bodies to determine who gets to be an artist or what qualifies as art. Art is a subjective term, with no fixed meaning and without strict guidelines it can be, and generally is, anything we want it to be. These ideas work perfectly fine in an environment where value is determined aesthetically or in dollars and cents, as is the case with most commodities—including art—a luxury and a pastime generally engaged in by the more affluent members of society. But, the applications of those same ideas in the broader world of economics, or more importantly in government or law are completely unworkable. I have great admiration for the artistry of Charlie Parker; I would however, hate to have him as my congressman! Therein is the problem with intuitive logic, which is the life blood of art—and why poets tend to make bad politicians. Art is about aesthetics, not practicality.
Such is the nature of our individual worldviews. We assume that our beliefs and values are not actually beliefs and values, but something more. If only others saw the world as we do, everything would be fine. The aesthete and the businessman compete for limited resources, meaning money, with the edge, at least in that regard, going to the businessman. From the artist’s perspective, the greedy, bloodsucking entrepreneur just wants to make a buck, while the guileless artist is interested only in beauty, and enriching the souls of their fellow man. While the businessman understands that art may enrich the soul, he is all too aware that it doesn’t inherently enrich the pocketbook, making all of us, including the artist, poorer.
These same variables are found in politics, with Republicans cast as the stern, business-like father-figure, telling you to “get up off your lazy butt and get a job”, with the Democrats acting like mom, “here’s ten dollars, don’t tell your dad”! In one way or the other we all appear to be eager to impose our personal worldview on others, sure as all potential sociopaths tend to be, that if only they adhered to our vision regarding, politics, life and love, that the world would be a better place, that God is with us—and that he, she or it looks suspiciously like us
At its core it may be nothing more than an argument between left brain, right brain oriented people—a cognitive civil war defined by geographic brain activity instead of regional politics. On the other hand that might be a piping mound of equine feculence—or at best, the speculative meanderings of the scientific mind searching for a paradigm in which to posit a theory and hopefully get a grant.
It may be that there is no inherent instinct for truth outside of the very fundamental recognition that seems to be universal to all people. C.S. Lewis wrote about the innate sense of justice that all men appeal to and that all men equally try to avoid when attempting to justify their actions. Truth however, is more than right and wrong. It's also cause and effect, made more complex by our interaction with others, who like us are attempting to solve the same puzzle, which only multiplies the problem. We are, by circumstance forced to make decisions for which there is no discernible right answer, there are simply too many variables—and so we make the choice that seems right under the given the circumstances and hope for the best.
How then do we determine the value? Any economist will tell you essentially the same thing. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Or in the language of economics, whatever price someone is willing to pay—whether we are dealing with art, commerce or even human life.
Individuals, business and governments all make decisions about cost versus benefit. We may determine when we are young and healthy to forgo buying health insurance, convinced as most young people tend to be, that life is eternal and death is something that happens to others, not us. We may understand that life is finite—but, given enough distance, death, like accountability can be pushed from our minds into some dark corner of the unconscious—and if we are fortunate, someone else will be made to pay the bill when it finally comes due.
Such is the life of the intuitive mind, concerned about abstractions, intuiting its way through life, detached from the banal nature of practicality, anxious to have its impractical inclinations subsidized by all the rubes watching NASCAR racing and drinking beer at the local bowling alley. That's why artists love freedom, but would also like to be able compel you to subsidize their personal choices with your tax dollars, meaning, give us your money and then leave us alone. After all, taxes are the governments money, not yours. The vagaries of the market are simply to volatile and no self respecting artist should have to work at a job that they hate. On the other hand, if you have to, well that's the price that we have to pay to have art. If the artists and their benefactors, meaning like-minded politicians can get you to dig into your pockets on the basis of some cleverly worded legislation that has been skillfully buried in the final draft of a sub-committee bill, then so be it. It’s well understood that Ivory Towers can be expensive to maintain.
Mark Magula
I have always been a bit an anarchist—not politically mind you—although I read Noam Chomsky intently in my younger days. I’ve never lobbed a bomb into a building in protest—but I have certainly thrown a rhetorical bomb or two....or thousand. After hearing enough of the usual—“art is priceless” and aren't we cool for thinking such non – mundane and meaningful stuff, I was compelled to offer a slightly different perspective. I said, “at best, art is representational—a two dimensional reflection of a three dimensional, living thing! No artistic rendering can begin to mimic the kind of complexity that is inherent in nature, except in the most basic way”. Their eyes focused on me like someone observing an alien life form—my words appearing to upset the rhythm of their self-congratulatory love fest. After a brief pause, the leader and horse renderer offered his own perspective. “I have seen many paintings of horses that are more beautiful than actual horses”! His meaning seemed to be that art, because it was aesthetically pleasing, was somehow more real than reality—and as such, more meaningful. Suggesting that, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, making the observer more beautiful as well.
Art by its nature has no single set rules, with no legislative bodies to determine who gets to be an artist or what qualifies as art. Art is a subjective term, with no fixed meaning and without strict guidelines it can be, and generally is, anything we want it to be. These ideas work perfectly fine in an environment where value is determined aesthetically or in dollars and cents, as is the case with most commodities—including art—a luxury and a pastime generally engaged in by the more affluent members of society. But, the applications of those same ideas in the broader world of economics, or more importantly in government or law are completely unworkable. I have great admiration for the artistry of Charlie Parker; I would however, hate to have him as my congressman! Therein is the problem with intuitive logic, which is the life blood of art—and why poets tend to make bad politicians. Art is about aesthetics, not practicality.
Such is the nature of our individual worldviews. We assume that our beliefs and values are not actually beliefs and values, but something more. If only others saw the world as we do, everything would be fine. The aesthete and the businessman compete for limited resources, meaning money, with the edge, at least in that regard, going to the businessman. From the artist’s perspective, the greedy, bloodsucking entrepreneur just wants to make a buck, while the guileless artist is interested only in beauty, and enriching the souls of their fellow man. While the businessman understands that art may enrich the soul, he is all too aware that it doesn’t inherently enrich the pocketbook, making all of us, including the artist, poorer.
These same variables are found in politics, with Republicans cast as the stern, business-like father-figure, telling you to “get up off your lazy butt and get a job”, with the Democrats acting like mom, “here’s ten dollars, don’t tell your dad”! In one way or the other we all appear to be eager to impose our personal worldview on others, sure as all potential sociopaths tend to be, that if only they adhered to our vision regarding, politics, life and love, that the world would be a better place, that God is with us—and that he, she or it looks suspiciously like us
At its core it may be nothing more than an argument between left brain, right brain oriented people—a cognitive civil war defined by geographic brain activity instead of regional politics. On the other hand that might be a piping mound of equine feculence—or at best, the speculative meanderings of the scientific mind searching for a paradigm in which to posit a theory and hopefully get a grant.
It may be that there is no inherent instinct for truth outside of the very fundamental recognition that seems to be universal to all people. C.S. Lewis wrote about the innate sense of justice that all men appeal to and that all men equally try to avoid when attempting to justify their actions. Truth however, is more than right and wrong. It's also cause and effect, made more complex by our interaction with others, who like us are attempting to solve the same puzzle, which only multiplies the problem. We are, by circumstance forced to make decisions for which there is no discernible right answer, there are simply too many variables—and so we make the choice that seems right under the given the circumstances and hope for the best.
How then do we determine the value? Any economist will tell you essentially the same thing. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Or in the language of economics, whatever price someone is willing to pay—whether we are dealing with art, commerce or even human life.
Individuals, business and governments all make decisions about cost versus benefit. We may determine when we are young and healthy to forgo buying health insurance, convinced as most young people tend to be, that life is eternal and death is something that happens to others, not us. We may understand that life is finite—but, given enough distance, death, like accountability can be pushed from our minds into some dark corner of the unconscious—and if we are fortunate, someone else will be made to pay the bill when it finally comes due.
Such is the life of the intuitive mind, concerned about abstractions, intuiting its way through life, detached from the banal nature of practicality, anxious to have its impractical inclinations subsidized by all the rubes watching NASCAR racing and drinking beer at the local bowling alley. That's why artists love freedom, but would also like to be able compel you to subsidize their personal choices with your tax dollars, meaning, give us your money and then leave us alone. After all, taxes are the governments money, not yours. The vagaries of the market are simply to volatile and no self respecting artist should have to work at a job that they hate. On the other hand, if you have to, well that's the price that we have to pay to have art. If the artists and their benefactors, meaning like-minded politicians can get you to dig into your pockets on the basis of some cleverly worded legislation that has been skillfully buried in the final draft of a sub-committee bill, then so be it. It’s well understood that Ivory Towers can be expensive to maintain.
Mark Magula