Bean-counters will never understand the transcendent value of art or religion

[cbayer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/may/17/bean-counters-understand-transcendent-art-religion

Giles Fraser
The Guardian, Friday 17 May 2013 14.29 EDT


Anish Kapoor's piece Two Blues at the Lisson Gallery in London, October 2012. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty

"In a situation where miserable reality can be changed only through economic growth, the concern with aesthetics demands justification." These are very nearly the first words of The Aesthetic Dimension, Herbert Marcuse's 1978 critique of Marxist aesthetics. Except Marcuse spoke of "radical political praxis", not "economic growth".

I have adapted his question for our current dominant ideology, for I don't suppose that a German Marxist philosopher is bedtime reading for Basingstoke MP and culture secretary, Maria Miller. Former economics graduate and advertising executive, Miller likes her culture to be functional, to be judged by how it boosts the wider economy. And it is part of Marcuse's argument that art becomes mere propaganda when it is forced to bend the knee to the prevailing ideology – and that is true whether it be Marxism or free-market economics.

In a thoroughly depressing speech given last month to gathered arts executives at the British Museum, she told them: "When times are tough and money is tight, our focus must be on culture's economic impact." The argument for publicly funded arts needs to be reframed, she insisted, "to hammer home the value of culture to our economy". Those whose orchestras and theatres and galleries are recipients of government funding were hardly in a position to say what they really thought about this touchy-feely philistinism from their bean-counting paymaster.

-snip-

I ought to confess my interest in all of this, for it may seem that I do not have a dog in the fight. I do. "The power of art," says Marcuse, "lies in its power to break the monopoly of established reality." My fascination with religion is its ability to do precisely the same. That it is able to suggest there is more to reality than the flat-footed empiricism of those who believe that if you can't count it, touch it or weigh it, it doesn't exist. In an age where religion has made itself look so foolish, art carries the torch for the sort of transcendence that art and faith once shared. Kapoor's work, for instance, rightly resists categorisation. And his extraordinary biomorphic sculptures have a beauty and significance about them that cannot be reduced to mere explanation. Like religion, he is trying to say things that cannot be said.

more at link

[okasha]

1. What is lost on the bean counters

of either the accounting or sola sciencia mindsets, is that art and religion are both things that are done. There is an intellectual aspect that can be discussed and fitted into various frameworks--or various frameworks can be imposed on it--but that aspect is ultimately irrelevant to the actual experience. Every person who sees, hears, reads, etc. an artwork participates in an individual and unique experience. The same is true of relgion. Neither is quantifiable.

[cbayer]

4. Agree. The author (and you) have put into words something that

rings very true for me. A person's individual experience of art or something religious can not be judged, even if you see/feel/experience something very different.

OTOH, there is the possibility of bad art and bad religion that might be used to harm others. I'm not sure where that falls.

[trotsky]

8. Who decides which art and which religion is bad?

You just said it can't be judged!

[rug]

15. Oooh, a gotcha!

BTW, this is what she actually said: "A person's individual experience of art or something religious can not be judged".

[okasha]

11. It's impossible (ever) to be an artist

and not realize that different people will see different things in your work, sometimes things that are very far from what you had in mind as you made it. A friend of mine did a beautiful beaded piece that I saw as an affirmation of womanhood and women's life-bearing power. When I spoke to her about it, though, she said she had made it as a comment on her mother's use of sexuality to manipulate men. Very different perspectives, same art.

Except as it's used in propaganda, bad art mainly hurts the eyes (or ears.) The exception is something like "Socialist Realism," that had a clear political agenda and supported the oppression of millions of people. Bad religion likewise is worst when it's allied with a political or economic agenda.

[cbayer]

13. Great example of how perspectives can differ and

I think that pertains to how people experience religion as well. Some feel it is liberating and enlightening, while others find it enslaving and dogmatic.

I was thinking of art that might be used to hurt others, which may or may not be propaganda. Some would argue that pornography harms women. Certain religions have prohibitions against particular images.

[okasha]

19. The line between sexually explicit art and pornography

is hard to draw, and again pretty much has to be an individual call. Are the winged phalluses in the Pompeii house of prostitution pornography, or are they a visual joke? For decades, the custodians of the site refused to admit women to that area on the basis that the images are indecent. I know people who would be offended by them, but I laugh. What about Robert Maplethorp's photography? Art or porn? I come down on the art side; others won't. The exception, I think, is work that involves or promotes violence.

[cbayer]

20. Violence is also a grey area, imo.

Violent images can promote and provoke better understanding, empathy and calls to action. But it is also an area where it is hard to draw the line.

Religion presents some of the same grey areas. Encouraging abstinence in very young women, for example, may be a good thing, but when used to control girls/women, it probably is not.

Anyway, the similarities are thought provoking.

[trotsky]

2. "Never"?

Well that's rather bigoted.

Oh yeah, it's OK to make broad sweeping judgments against straw men, as long as you're doing it to defend religion. Sorry, I forgot.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

5. Why is it that when I complain about atheists making actual bigoted remarks,

I get stomped on, but atheists can say that believers are bigoted, and that's apparently just fine.

Can you say "double standard", boys and girls? I knew you could.

[trotsky]

7. Because you attack DUers personally.

I'm commenting on a headline, not something a DUer said.

You've been put on probation from this group due to your behavior - and it wasn't just atheists who decided your behavior was over the line.

I suggest you be careful or it will happen again, only it might be permanent next time.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

9. As I said, I complained about ACTUAL BIGOTED REMARKS

And was slapped down. You whine about "bigotry" "in defence of religion" (I put "bigotry" in quotes, because there was none), and no one notices.

It clearly is a double standard.

[trotsky]

10. The hosts of this group decided your behavior was unacceptable.

Take it up with them. I am not interested in being assaulted by you anymore.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. trotsky has got it right; the problem is that you insulted DUers

This has always been a principle on DU - public figures are fair game, but members aren't.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

37. As Renew Deal pointed out to me

Saying <X> made a bigoted remark is worse than <X>'s making the bigoted remark. In other words, actual bigotry is not as bad as pointing out the bigotry.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. If you think someone has made a bigoted remark, then alert on it

Your definition of 'bigoted' may not fit with the typical DUer's definition. I suspect Renew Deal did not really say that the remarks by DUers that you attack were actually bigoted.

[skepticscott]

43. Except that you had to

lie about what someone else said in order to make your case that people in here are "bigoted". So no, no double standard. Just people telling the truth, and you.

[skepticscott]

33. Because you

have to lie out your ass to make the case that atheists here are bigoted. You lied about what Dawkjns said and have NEVER backed it up by justifying your BS claim.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

38. One thing about me is that I DO NOT LIE

I called you on a bigoted remark WITH EVIDENCE, and you whined "He's being mean to me!" And now you are slandering me by calling me a liar -- thereby demonstrating that you are perfectly prepared to lie.

I shall not complaint that you have insulted me, although I fully expect you to complain about me. That is, after all, what you do. You can dish it out, but you cannot take it.

[trotsky]

40. You made up a quote and attributed it to Richard Dawkins.

You have been asked many times by multiple people to provide a citation - and the only thing you've been able to muster is a link to an article that DOESN'T CONTAIN THE QUOTE.

Your credibility, sincerity, and honesty would improve greatly if you could just admit Dawkins didn't say what you claim he did.

But I know better than to expect such Christian behavior from you. You seem to embrace anger and vitriol more than love and respect.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. I take exception to your last sentence, to be honest, I find his behavior...

typical of Christian behavior, rather than atypical. I don't understand the equating of Christian behavior with love or respect.

[skepticscott]

41. You lied about what Dawkins said

Now you're lying about what I said (we both know you can't point to where I said "he's being mean to me!&quot , you're lying about being "slandered" and you're lying about not being a liar.

That about covers it. But I'm sure gawd loves you for bearing false witness so shamelessly.

[Bradical79]

44. liar

[Jim__]

3. Two blues?

[center][/center]



The picture in the article shows 2 people looking at Two Blues. I think this is the actual piece, but I'm not sure.

[cbayer]

6. Interesting that he named it that.

Here is the artist in front of the piece.

[Jim__]

12. Yes, it is.

[okasha]

17. Hmm.

I don't know this artist's body of work, but I wonder if the point is that the viewer and the artist will see two different blues in the form to his right, and the red (plum, violet-red, red-violet?) form is a distraction or simply isn't reflected in the title. (Of course, given the title, viewers will try valiantly to see both forms as blue, thereby engaging in a lot of unnecessary mental acrobatics.) Maybe it's something of a joke at the viewer's expense, or a reminder not to try to see what's not there.

[cbayer]

18. I read a little about it and he does include very different blues in both orbs.

But only he knows what that means, I suspect.

[LostOne4Ever]

14. Reminds me of a Star trek TNG episode

Reminds me of a Star trek TNG episode where their captain was captured and interrogated. There are 4 lights in the room and the interrogator promises the captain that if he admits there are 5 lights he will let him go.

Maybe the piece is about looking for something that isn't there.

[cbayer]

16. I don't know about you, but when I see art that stirs me, I am not looking for anything.

[LostOne4Ever]

32. I have always viewed art as a form of expression and skill

I like to try and find out the idea that the artist is trying to convey to us; and beyond that, what it means to me. It makes art more interesting and interactive.

Is the piece simply about the beauty of the basic geometric shapes? The colors? What it makes us feel? Is it an attempt to tell a story? To show technical skill and ability?

In this case I think the title is a part of the exhibit. It say two blues but one of them is obviously not blue. Is this piece about the cognitive dissonance between reality and the title? Is it a statement on the changing meaning of words or colors? Is it about trying to have the observer to see what is not there?

I personally prefer more concrete art, but even then there is a lot to decipher.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. That was a rip-off of Orwell's '1984'; the torturer holds up 4 fingers, and asks

how many there are, and then "what if the Party says there are five?" After a bit of torture, discussion about what 2 and 2 is, whether just saying whatever will stop the torture is good enough, and more torture, the hero is so broken that he can start to hallucinate, and believe the torturer when he says there are 5.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. That's all right, Kapoor and his comtemporaries can finance their own art

His company, White Dark, made a £14.6m profit on sales of £18.1m in 2009. It has net assets worth £28.2m and has paid out £4m in dividends to Kapoor over the past four years. He has invested heavily in property and has homes in London and the Bahamas.

http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth/celebrity-business/men/anish-kapoor-net-worth/

[cbayer]

22. Yes, but for every one of him, how many hundreds of struggling artists are out there?

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. He can take care of a few; Hirst can look after a lot more

$300m: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/damien-hirst-net-worth/

It's hard to read about a major British artist in a piece about 'bean-counters' and not laugh. They are loaded. Kapoor could have put his own exhibition on in Britain any time he wanted. And, since he got commissioned for a 115m tall tower for the Olympics, which included £3.1m of public money to build, I think Kapoor doesn't have a leg to stand on when he says support of British art is 'fucked'.

[okasha]

24. Do you believe that only artists

who can afford to pay for exhibits themselves sould be shown?

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. No, but I think the multi-millionaire ones forego the right to complain about funding

and any decent writer wouldn't be quoting them when the purpose of his article is to insult the Secretary of State as a 'bean-counter'. Kapoor has been counting his money for years.

[okasha]

29. But Kapoor isn't complaining

that he didn't get funded. He's complaining that Britain doesn't show the commitment to «the arts»--art in general--that Germany does. That is something rather different. How many visual artists, dancers, musicians, actors, ceramicists, etc., do you think he should be financing?

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. It's in the context of Kapoor's exhibition in Berlin

and he says it's his best show because it's in Berlin - where artists get 'healthy respect'.

With an income of £4 million a year, I think he could support 10 full time artists quite happily, or donate to many forms of art that actually reach people (as you say, musicians, actors etc.) Kapoor could have never produced a single piece, and it wouldn't have affected my life in any way - seeing the Olympic Tower on TV was, as far as I know, the first time I've seen his work. But, for an artist who doesn't reach that many people, he's got an awful lot of respect - a member of the RA, awarded the CBE, won the Turner Prize (which is a major event in Britain - live TV coverage of the announcement, features on the nominees and their work) ...

[Warpy]

26. I get art

but that's probably because I do art.

I don't get religion, which is why I don't do it.

[cbayer]

27. Or maybe you don't do religion because you don't get it?

I don't do art or religion because I can't, but I sometimes envy those that can.

[Warpy]

28. Probably, its the same reason I don't do football.

However, saying that one who doesn't get religion can't possibly get art is disingenuous. You can't lump them together, any more than you can lump religion and football together, even though the line seems to be blurred in Texas.

[cbayer]

31. I don't think anyone has said that some one who doesn't get religion can't get art.

Nor do I think anyone has said that someone that doesn't get art can't get religion.

I think he is just pointing out the similarities between the two.

Now football, that's something I really don't get.

[dimbear]

30. Reminds me of the tale of Parisian stockbroker Paul Gauguin.

Last edited Fri May 17, 2013, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Dreamed of painting, but of course as a bean-counter there wouldn't be much hope.

Later, English bank employee T S Eliot would try scratching out verses.
Sad cases.

*******later.

Should have given a tip of the hat to Saint Matthew, the former tax gatherer.

[struggle4progress]

45. Yes, it is bread we fight for -- but we fight for roses, too!

[uriel1972]

46. Is "bean-counters" a substitute for "materialists"?

because this "bean-counter" gets art and writes poetry and draws and..... so on.
I got religion, but I got over it.
And yes, I'm thinking of becoming an accountant one day.

[okasha]

48. "Bean counter" in this context

seems to mean someone who sees art only as a marketable commodity and values it only according to its potential for producing a profit.

Most bookkeepers, accountants and members of related professions don't fall into this category. They "get" art just fine.

[struggle4progress]

47. It is somewhat ironic that an essay, claiming quantitative thinkers cannot understand art,

is illustrated by art based on spherical endcaps

Much of the history of modern science has depended on the careful geometrical groundwork laid by the ancient Greeks, but the same is true of Western art -- and it would be silly to pretend there were never any quantitative ingredients there

Euclid alone has looked on Beauty bare.
Let all who prate of Beauty hold their peace,
And lay them prone upon the earth and cease
To ponder on themselves, the while they stare
At nothing, intricately drawn nowhere
In shapes of shifting lineage; let geese
Gabble and hiss, but heroes seek release
From dusty bondage into luminous air.
O blinding hour, O holy, terrible day,
When first the shaft into his vision shone
Of light anatomized! Euclid alone
Has looked on Beauty bare. Fortunate they
Who, though once only and then but far away,
Have heard her massive sandal set on stone.

- Edna St. Vincent Millay (1923)

[edhopper]

49. As an artist

and an atheist, i find the authors conflating art and religion and his condescension of those of us who accept reality both insulting and misguided.

His analogy is tortured and strained.

Art may be about imagination, but it is a presentation of the human mind and perception.

Realist artist realize that are interpreting reality and other abstract and nonrepresentational artist don't insist that what they present is real as religion does. Dali, Picasso, Matisse, Pollock did not ask that you believe in what they painted. They are showing you concepts from their minds. That only exist with the artist's mind. It is closer to myths and fantasy fiction than religion, where adherents claim their claims are real in every sense.

OMT; The small minded insult that atheist and somehow without imagination and a sense of wonder is old, tired and should be put to rest.