Seems I'm not quite done with art yet - Tactical Ninja
Feb. 21st, 2013
09:34 am - Seems I'm not quite done with art yet
So I woke up this morning and in my inbox there was an unsolicited email from Amazon. Normally I'd delete this without compunction, but the subject line caught my eye:
"BIC Cristal For Her Ball Pen, 1.0mm.."
For Her? They made a ballpoint pen just for me? I had to know what this meant! So I went and looked at the site. Apparently, a pen 'for her' has easy-gliding ink for BEAUTIFULLY SMOOTH WRITING, a sleek silhouette and jewlled accents for STYLE, a soft grip for COMFORT, and FASHION INK! Another section for a different 'for her' pen told me it had a smaller barrel for my delicate lady hands!
Now, I've often complained about the frustration of trying to use tools that were designed for man-hands. It's especially a problem with things that require a firm grip or things with a scissor action, that need the ability to span a wide gap with your hands - things like footrot shears and hand rammers, for example. One of my favourite tools from Ye Olden Tymes, and one of the things my ex-husband actually got right, was my undersized shoeing hammer he gave me for Christmas one year. But I have never had a problem holding a pen. I've never had a problem with standard blue ink, or with a lack of glitter, and my LadyBiceps have never had trouble pushing a pen across a page. I have never thought, "Gee I wish this ink would glide better so my writing could be more beautiful!" Pens are simply not a thing that suffer from the male-as-default thing.
So I was all ready to take the piss out of this somewhat silly idea of making GLITTER FASHION pens and trying to market them as 'for her'. But it seems that I've been beaten to it. I can't top the reviews that are already there. I LOLed for real.
This morning's bit o' reading about Big Ideas covered the concept of beauty and the Intentional Fallacy. So the Intentional Fallacy is the idea that the design, intention or biographical context of the author is relevant to the criticism of a work of art, and this idea was considered fallacious by the New Critics of the mid-20th Century. They felt that works of art should be judged based entirely on their 'internal evidence' - only the actual details present in a given work.
This is the bit where Art History majors go to sleep, right? So what, yadda yadda.. I know it's more complex than that but bear with me OK?
So the example given was Wagner, who was apparently a mostrous egotist and a raving anti-Semite. Despite this, he managed to create music that was critically acclaimed. The question is then, is his music any less good because of his personality flaws or beliefs? The logical answer is no. I made this argument about Julian Assange when the stuff about his activities in Sweden first came to light. The dude is somewhat hero-worshipped because of his work with Wikileaks, and some people seemed to think that made it wrong for him to be accused of rape - and it led to some pretty horrible acts on the part of those people in defence of Assange's 'innocence'. My argument is that Assange as a person exists separately from his work with Wikileaks, and it's possible for him to be an important man doing good work and a dodgy motherfucker who treats women like shit at the same time. Sure, it's not art, but I think it's a similar argument - his personal activities have no bearing on the quality of his work, and his work should not be judged based on the possibility that he's a rapist. Likewise, his innocence or guilt of the rape charges should not be judged based on his work with Wikileaks. So I sort of agree with this idea of the Intentional Fallacy.
It brought to mind the stuff from the other day about Alistair Crowley's portrayal of paganism and women, which seems to have been very much a product of who he was (upper class English with the usual set of repressions related to this), and the time he was in (women still pretty much without agency, paganism still in the realms of blasphemy but fascinating to those with the means to avoid their 'deviance' having real negative impact on their lives). The product, as Happy pointed out the other day, was "an attempt to justify his own deviance through complicating it into religion .. that never raised itself above schoolyard naughtiness."
However, that is viewed in the context of today's New Zealand, where the class structure is much less evident, women have much more agency, and paganism is more or less accepted as another form of religion. And this is, in part, because Alistair Crowley brought this stuff into light in a time when it was considered deviant. So I then ask the question, can we accurately judge the quality of Crowley's work without taking into account the context it arose from?
Maybe back when it was first produced, we could. But with 100 years of history under the bridge, it seems to me that the man, his work and his place in history have become one thing. And then I wonder if this is because the work we're judging is the work that made him famous. I mean, have a look at this painting:
Any good? I dunno, I'm no art critic. Seems a bit boring to me, muted colours, not photorealist enough, seems unfinished, but it wouldn't piss me off because the proportion and perspective are pretty much right. So, you know, a nondescript painting that I'd give 6 or 7 out of 10. Does knowing it was painted by Hitler make it any different? Not to me, but I think that's because Hitler's painting was not related to his infamy - he wasn't known for art, therefore the context of its production is less relevant to its quality, you know?
Did I just Godwin myself?
*cough* Anyway, so what am I trying to say here? I don't really know. What I do know is that when I read a book, before I start the story I always look at the publisher's page. I want to know when it was written, and where it was first published. For me, the context of time and place helps me to understand the story, and this avoids confusion and/or annoyance with various cultural markers in the text. I guess that means that I'm not convinced the Intentional Fallacy is all that fallacious. Hmm..
Welcome to my navel, it's linty in here. Also, I started taking Vitamin D about a week ago, because this app I'm using to track my food also measures nutrition, and Vitamins D and E, and iron, are things that I consistently struggle to get enough of through diet alone so those are what I supplement. I have noticed my brain going into overdrive in the last few days. Not sure what's up with that but it's a bit..O.o um. Either I'll learn lots of stuff really fast or my head will explode. I'll keep you posted.