February 24th, 2010
In the course of the last century new forms have emerged in the arts. These, by process of natural selection, have driven their ancient forebears, things like painting, sculpture, and poetry, to near extinction. The rex mundi of this new generation of art is surely the motion picture: an amalgam of virtually all of the other disciplines; as fine as any of them, and potentially more affecting.
For this reason we hold up and revere our favorite artists of this celebrated medium, from the rarefied deities of worldwide celebrity to the mystery cults of independent film. They even deign to celebrate themselves, with ceremonies more ostentatious than coronations. And why not? We hang on their every word and deed, and tremble in their presence. Just as we have abandoned the old art forms, so too have we forsaken our religious icons in favor of this new pantheon.
Yet for all this adoration, the question remains: why then are movies so god awful? They are almost universally bereft of artistic merit. Hopefully, we are not so naïve as to think that the plastic nature of digitization is to blame – let’s not throw out the power drill because the chair wobbles. In the right hands a movie about two flat squares might make us weep. Moreover, there is no going backwards, certainly not in art. Our imaginations have not died while we were on the computer; they are merely lethargic from lack of exercise.
The fault, dear Reader, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. It’s quite baffling how people buy a ticket for a crap movie and then are surprised when they are not satisfied by it. We all know the expression, ‘fool me once, shame on me…’ What is the proper expression when one has been fooled constantly over the course of their entire lives? Equal blame goes to those that refuse to pay for what they can just as easily steal. In so doing they forfeit the right to complain, for they have denied the better art their patronage. Now they can only steal garbage from a trash heap.
…
February 17th, 2010
Why don’t I allow comments? The better question is: why would I? Particularly when the reasons against doing so are manifold. For starters, the subjects I choose have typically already weathered in public for some time (this one notwithstanding), and novel perspectives grow increasing rare. When you invite comment from everyone the odds of hearing something unique, or even productive, become quite narrow.
Instead we should expect the usual anonymous slander, neurotic posturing, pointless nonsense, blatant bigotry, and automated marketing that we now find everywhere; reason enough to discourage public feedback. Like any modern consumer of information I have trained myself to mostly ignore those things, but what concerns me more are the genuine responses, the ill-conceived spontaneous ruminations of whoever. Where did we find this holy respect for the knee-jerk opinion of non-experts?
The mass media has it. They have found in the everyman an easy alternative to research and reporting. The enormously complex worldwide recession found the world’s most brilliant economists and investors at a loss. So who to consult? Why here’s the man on the street, here to enlighten us with his nuanced insight on macro economics.
Interestingly, whenever they want to shoot one of those ageless exposés on how stupid Americans are they go out looking for the same people. Thus the signal to noise gap grows ever wider. Some are really choking on it. You can literally tell certain people a simple piece of information and watch it, like canary in a coalmine, die as it ventures into their ear. If you truly feel that your perspective has merit (it certainly may), build your own pulpit and gather what disciples ye may; don’t vandalize someone else’s with your speculations.
…
February 10th, 2010
There are those that say the quaint rule of monogamy has fallen by the wayside, just one effect of the fine progress of our spiritual lives in the last century. At some point our magnificent race determined that superficial relationships were the cure for the existential horrors of war and genocide.
Those who wish to see the rule of monogamy overturned cite its rampant failures as evidence: the incidence of adultery, divorce, and so on. I suppose we should abandon the written word as well because some people struggle with spelling.
Quite a few claim that promiscuity is part of our biology; they think they have experienced the depths of intimacy and would like to move on. To them I suggest locating an elderly couple that has been together a half century or more and telling them so, they will have fun remembering it later.
Of late there have been significant discoveries in the field of neurobiology that confirm what most of us already knew: the only reliable source of lasting contentment is the cultivation of healthy, successful relationships. A healthy relationship is a difficult thing to maintain; it becomes infinitely more so when one willingly invites their own complications.
…
February 3rd, 2010
I once read an interview with a prominent intellectual wherein he referred to spectator sports as “training in irrational jingoism.” The accusation struck me, in part because it is a shocking and seemingly incisive observation, but also because it is an observation that only a huge nerd would make. I’m fairly certain that when a bunch of homo erectus started kicking melons around, they paid little thought to the potential for inculcation.
The statement “irrational jingoism” also has a pejorative ring that I take exception to. I would argue that those susceptible to jingoism of sports are made better by distraction (and might benefit from training of any kind). It’s true that professional sports encourage a rainbow of distasteful effects: chief among them the poisonous role models with their celebrity scandals and criminal propensities such as the corruption of steroids – we might enjoy the spectacle of warring gorillas if any of the virtues of athleticism were preserved.
Nevertheless, I reckon spectator sports are a net positive: when we seriously consider the disposition of our race it’s a relief that we have something pacifying to hold our interest. Moreover, the criticism is ignorant of the curative effects of sports: Israeli/Palestinian football teams or Indian and Pakistani cricket tours spring to mind, and the stage provided to the likes of Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali and Jesse Owens, demonstrating against the ‘irrational jingoism’ of their day.
All this is not to excuse the mindlessness of a life dedicated to spectating, unless one is a worker drone in which case I can think of no better avocation. As for those with the potential for independent thought, consider the mind only needs to relax and watch sports if it is at other times vigorous. And, take heed: there is some truth to the “training in irrational jingoism” side of spectator sports, but we can still enjoy them if we are conscious of it, and vigilant.
…
